Hi Lukasz,
Hi Akshay,
I'm not Samsung tree maintainer, but by chance I've come across those patches and...
First question - why have you omitted u-boot-samsung tree maintainer? I've added Minkyu to CC.
Minkyu has an email ID "promsoft@gmail.com" and I added that in CC. Probably you don't know this email id :-)
Also in the cover letter you claim that this patch was "build tested" for Exynos4 based boards. Why didn't you add at least one maintainer of those boards to CC?
In cover letter I have not mentioned anywhere that I have built or tested these patches over Exynos4. Patch 2/4 says "Build tested" because Rajeshwari did build images for Exynos4 boards and that was successfull but nobody tested booting those images. I do not possess any Exynos4 board. These patches are meant for Exynos5 only. But Yes, there are compiler errors introduced for smkc100 because of this new patch-set and I will fix them in the next patch-set.
+/* A list of valid GPIO numbers for the asm-generic/gpio.h interface */ +enum exynos5_gpio_pin {
- /* GPIO_PART1_STARTS */
- EXYNOS5_GPIO_A00, /* 0 */
- EXYNOS5_GPIO_A01,
- EXYNOS5_GPIO_A02,
- EXYNOS5_GPIO_A03,
- EXYNOS5_GPIO_A04,
According to the patch description, you had a compilation error when were adding the support for Exynos 5250 and 5420. Why you fix the problem by rewriting the whole framework?
This framework is not intended to fix compiler warnings or errors but to make GPIO numbering easy to remember and sequential, without any holes in between.
IN the patch 2/4 you have:
gpio_cfg_pin(start + i, GPIO_FUNC(0x2));gpio_set_pull(start + i, GPIO_PULL_NONE);gpio_set_drv(start + i, GPIO_DRV_4X);
gpio_cfg_pin(start + i, S5P_GPIO_FUNC(0x2));gpio_set_pull(start + i, S5P_GPIO_PULL_NONE);gpio_set_drv(start + i, S5P_GPIO_DRV_4X);What is the rationale to change the name to S5P_GPIO and not stick to GPIO_FUNC? In which way gpios for Exynos5 are different than for Exynos4? Cannot we finally reuse the Exynos 4 and 5 code?
We have enum member GPIO_INPUT in common/cmd_gpio.c and GPIO_INPUT define in arch-exynos/gpio.h. To remove such conflicts we renamed all s5p defines from "GPIO_*" to "S5P_GPIO_*". We are using the same s5p_gpio.c for both Exynos4 and 5 as far as I know. I dont get the exact issue here. Do you want me to remove "S5P_". Is that it ?
With the same patch:
- case PERIPH_ID_UART1:
bank = &gpio1->d0;start = 0;
start = EXYNOS5_GPIO_D00;What is wrong with specifying the bank field? Why your gpio command cannot use the bank approach?
Ultimately we are using banks and pin_nums specific to the bank only after we extract exact bank from the sequential pin_num.
And one more question: Is this work compliant with new driver model, which will be accepted at the merge window after the v2014.04 release?
If not, then there is no point to review this code, since GPIO would need to be adjusted to use this framework.
Please explain more. I don't get this as well :-)
-- Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
Regards, Akshay Saraswat