From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c01::22f]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VfmcV-0007oE-Qt for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:13:16 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f175.google.com with SMTP id k11so1203227eaj.20 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:12:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:12:40 +0100 From: Alexander Aring Message-ID: <20131111081146.GA19542@omega> References: <1384003450-21001-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <1384003450-21001-4-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20131111013019.GA16967@x61s.Speedport_W_921V_1_24_000> <20131111080727.GD24559@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131111080727.GD24559@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gpiolib: make gpiolib command more verbose To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:07:27AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:30:20AM +0100, Alexander Aring wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > > > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 02:24:08PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > This adds some more printf information to gpiolib command, like the > > > gpiochip handling a specific gpio. Also, current direction and value > > > of the gpio are printed, if the gpiochip provides the corresponding > > > callbacks. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth > > > --- > > > Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org > > > --- > > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > > index ca6e8ad..c12ebe6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > > @@ -228,16 +228,34 @@ static int do_gpiolib(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > int i; > > > > > > printf("gpiolib: gpio lists\n"); > > > - printf("%*crequested label\n", 11, ' '); > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < ARCH_NR_GPIOS; i++) { > > > struct gpio_info *gi = &gpio_desc[i]; > > > + int val = -1, dir = -1; > > > > > > if (!gi->chip) > > > continue; > > > > > > - printf("gpio %*d: %*s %s\n", 4, > > > - i, 9, gi->requested ? "true" : "false", > > > + /* print chip information and header on first gpio */ > > > + if (gi->chip->base == i) { > > > + printf("\ngpios %u-%u, chip %s:\n", > > > + gi->chip->base, > > > + gi->chip->base + gi->chip->ngpio, > > > > I think this should be "gi->chip->base + gi->chip->ngpio - 1", because > > we starting at zero on base. > > Indeed. Otherwise I get the following for my 32bit gpio bank: > > gpios 0-31, chip 209c000.gpio: > dir val requested label > gpio 0: unk lo false > gpio 1: unk lo false > ... > > Fixed this while applying. detected by starring, watching and thinking. Yea and maybe I used the force. :-) Thanks Sascha. - Alex _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox