GPS PM: inconsistent pin usage?

[Elrond]

Hi,

I looked a bit at the PM kernel module, and came across
something, that at least looks inconsistent to me. Would be
nice, if someone could help me understand it.

Okay:

Index: linux-2.6.17.14-fic4.test/arch/arm/common/gta01_pm_gps.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.17.14-fic4.test/arch/arm/common/gta01_pm_gps.c	2007-02-07 20:42:24.000000000 +0100
...
+static int __init gta01_pm_gps_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+
+	s3c2410_gpio_cfgpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_PWRON, S3C2410_GPIO_OUTPUT);
+
+	switch (system_rev) {
+	case GTA01v3_SYSTEM_REV:
+		break;
+	case GTA01v4_SYSTEM_REV:
+		s3c2410_gpio_cfgpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_RESET, S3C2410_GPIO_OUTPUT);
+		break;
+	case GTA01Bv3_SYSTEM_REV:
+		s3c2410_gpio_cfgpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_EN_3V3, S3C2410_GPIO_OUTPUT);
+		/* fallthrough */
+	case GTA01Bv2_SYSTEM_REV:
+		s3c2410_gpio_cfgpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_EN_2V8, S3C2410_GPIO_OUTPUT);
+		s3c2410_gpio_cfgpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_EN_3V, S3C2410_GPIO_OUTPUT);
+		s3c2410_gpio_cfgpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_RESET, S3C2410_GPIO_OUTPUT);
+		break;
+	default:

That part of the code suggests to me, that the
GTA01Bv3_SYSTEM_REV has the GTA01_GPIO_GPS_RESET pin wired
to the gps and is being used for this.


+/* This is the nRESET pin */
+static void gps_rst_set(int on)
+{
+	switch (system_rev) {
+	case GTA01v3_SYSTEM_REV:
+		pcf50606_gpo0_set(pcf50606_global, on);
+		break;
+	case GTA01v4_SYSTEM_REV:
+	case GTA01Bv2_SYSTEM_REV:
+		s3c2410_gpio_setpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_RESET, on);
+		break;
+	}
+}
+
+static int gps_rst_get(void)
+{
+	switch (system_rev) {
+	case GTA01v3_SYSTEM_REV:
+		if (pcf50606_gpo0_get(pcf50606_global))
+			return 1;
+		break;
+	case GTA01v4_SYSTEM_REV:
+	case GTA01Bv2_SYSTEM_REV:
+		if (s3c2410_gpio_getpin(GTA01_GPIO_GPS_RESET))
+			return 1;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}

While this code deals with the GTA01_GPIO_GPS_RESET pin, it
misses the case for GTA01Bv3_SYSTEM_REV.


* If I'm just missing something simple, can someone please
  clue me?
* If this is intended behaviour, I'd highly suggest to add
  some comments to the source, WHY this is so.
* If this is really a "bug", can someone with the knowledge
  of the hw-design please fix it?


    Elrond