Since 39b2bbe3d715 (gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions) which appeared in v3.17-rc1, the gpiod_get* functions take an additional parameter that allows to specify direction and initial value for output.
Use this to simplify the driver. Furthermore this is one caller less that stops us making the flags argument to gpiod_get*() mandatory.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de --- drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c | 17 ++--------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c index 29e52d7c61c0..490f751c5804 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static int edp_gpio_config(struct edp_ctrl *ctrl) struct device *dev = &ctrl->pdev->dev; int ret;
- ctrl->panel_hpd_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "panel-hpd"); + ctrl->panel_hpd_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "panel-hpd", GPIOD_IN); if (IS_ERR(ctrl->panel_hpd_gpio)) { ret = PTR_ERR(ctrl->panel_hpd_gpio); ctrl->panel_hpd_gpio = NULL; @@ -381,13 +381,7 @@ static int edp_gpio_config(struct edp_ctrl *ctrl) return ret; }
- ret = gpiod_direction_input(ctrl->panel_hpd_gpio); - if (ret) { - pr_err("%s: Set direction for hpd failed, %d\n", __func__, ret); - return ret; - } - - ctrl->panel_en_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "panel-en"); + ctrl->panel_en_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "panel-en", GPIOD_OUT_LOW); if (IS_ERR(ctrl->panel_en_gpio)) { ret = PTR_ERR(ctrl->panel_en_gpio); ctrl->panel_en_gpio = NULL; @@ -395,13 +389,6 @@ static int edp_gpio_config(struct edp_ctrl *ctrl) return ret; }
- ret = gpiod_direction_output(ctrl->panel_en_gpio, 0); - if (ret) { - pr_err("%s: Set direction for panel_en failed, %d\n", - __func__, ret); - return ret; - } - DBG("gpio on");
return 0;
On 06/09/2015 06:38 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Since 39b2bbe3d715 (gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions) which appeared in v3.17-rc1, the gpiod_get* functions take an additional parameter that allows to specify direction and initial value for output.
Use this to simplify the driver. Furthermore this is one caller less that stops us making the flags argument to gpiod_get*() mandatory.
Acked-by: Alexandre Courbot acourbot@nvidia.com
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de wrote:
Since 39b2bbe3d715 (gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions) which appeared in v3.17-rc1, the gpiod_get* functions take an additional parameter that allows to specify direction and initial value for output.
Use this to simplify the driver. Furthermore this is one caller less that stops us making the flags argument to gpiod_get*() mandatory.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de
Acked-by: Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org
Yours, Linus Walleij
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:38:45AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Since 39b2bbe3d715 (gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions) which appeared in v3.17-rc1, the gpiod_get* functions take an additional parameter that allows to specify direction and initial value for output.
Use this to simplify the driver. Furthermore this is one caller less that stops us making the flags argument to gpiod_get*() mandatory.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de
gentle ping.
I intend to make the flags parameter mandatory for 4.3. So if this patch doesn't make it in for 4.2-rc1 I'd like to take it as part of the respective gpio change via the gpio tree.
What's your plan regarding this change?
Best regards Uwe
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:38:45AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Since 39b2bbe3d715 (gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions) which appeared in v3.17-rc1, the gpiod_get* functions take an additional parameter that allows to specify direction and initial value for output.
Use this to simplify the driver. Furthermore this is one caller less that stops us making the flags argument to gpiod_get*() mandatory.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de
gentle ping.
I intend to make the flags parameter mandatory for 4.3. So if this patch doesn't make it in for 4.2-rc1 I'd like to take it as part of the respective gpio change via the gpio tree.
What's your plan regarding this change?
I had planned to send a second pull request for 4.2 with some additional hdcp patches that depend on scm changes coming in via arm-soc tree for 4.2.. if that is ok, I can include this patch with that second pull req.. otherwise I'm ok with Dave applying it directly or you taking it in via gpio tree. Either way is fine by me.
BR, -R
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 16 June 2015 at 02:00, Rob Clark robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:38:45AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Since 39b2bbe3d715 (gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions) which appeared in v3.17-rc1, the gpiod_get* functions take an additional parameter that allows to specify direction and initial value for output.
Use this to simplify the driver. Furthermore this is one caller less that stops us making the flags argument to gpiod_get*() mandatory.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de
gentle ping.
I intend to make the flags parameter mandatory for 4.3. So if this patch doesn't make it in for 4.2-rc1 I'd like to take it as part of the respective gpio change via the gpio tree.
What's your plan regarding this change?
I had planned to send a second pull request for 4.2 with some additional hdcp patches that depend on scm changes coming in via arm-soc tree for 4.2.. if that is ok, I can include this patch with that second pull req.. otherwise I'm ok with Dave applying it directly or you taking it in via gpio tree. Either way is fine by me.
Mildly related:
Rob, would it make things a bit easier if we have you listed in MAINTAINERS for the msm/freedreno driver ?
Uwe, you might have greater input if you explicitly CC the {unofficial,} maintainer of the relevant driver. Some drivers don't have one explicitly listed in MAINTAINERS, so git log tends to help there :-)
Cheers, Emil
Hello Emil,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:51:26PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
I had planned to send a second pull request for 4.2 with some additional hdcp patches that depend on scm changes coming in via arm-soc tree for 4.2.. if that is ok, I can include this patch with that second pull req.. otherwise I'm ok with Dave applying it directly or you taking it in via gpio tree. Either way is fine by me.
Mildly related:
Rob, would it make things a bit easier if we have you listed in MAINTAINERS for the msm/freedreno driver ?
Uwe, you might have greater input if you explicitly CC the {unofficial,} maintainer of the relevant driver. Some drivers don't have one explicitly listed in MAINTAINERS, so git log tends to help there :-)
I consider it hard to choose the right set of recipents for areas where I don't usually patch. Addressing too much people is bad as is addressing too less. And what is considered right differs per subsystem/maintainer/contributor. I don't claim it's impossible to find out the right person, but for a patch stack with more than say a dozen patches distributed all over the source tree it's the easiest to check scripts/get_maintainer.pl and select what looks reasonable from its output. So having the maintainer listed is definitly nice because at least for me it increases the chance considerably to pick him for cc.
Best regards Uwe
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Alexandre Courbot -
Emil Velikov -
Linus Walleij -
Rob Clark -
Uwe Kleine-König