Date:	Fri, 12 Dec 2014 22:05:37 +0900
From:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] gpio: Cygnus: define Broadcom Cygnus GPIO binding

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2014 16:05:04 Ray Jui wrote:
>> +
>> +- linux,gpio-base:
>> +    Base GPIO number of this controller
>> +
>>
>
> We've NAK'ed properties like this multiple times before, and it
> doesn't get any better this time. What are you trying to achieve
> here?

I am to blame for suggesting using this property to Ray, and I am
fully aware that this has been rejected before, but look at what
people came with recently to palliate the lack of control over the
GPIO number space for DT platforms:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg384847.html
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/10/133

Right now GPIO numbering for platforms using DT is a very inconsistent
process, subject to change by the simple action of adjusting the value
of ARCH_NR_GPIOS (which we did recently, btw), adding a new GPIO
controller, or changing the probe order of devices. For users of the
integer or sysfs interfaces, this results in GPIO numbers that change,
and drivers and/or user-space programs that behave incorrectly.
Ironically, the only way to have consistent numbers is to use the old
platform files, where you can specify the base number of a gpio_chip.

DT is actually probably not such a bad place to provide consistency in
GPIO numbering. It has a global vision of the system layout, including
all GPIO controllers and the number of GPIOs they include, and thus
can make informed decisions. It provides a consistent result
regardless of probe order. And allowing it to assign GPIO bases to
controllers will free us from the nonsensical dependency of some
arbitrary upper-bound for GPIO numbers that ARCH_NR_GPIOS imposes on
us. Also about ARCH_NR_GPIOS, the plan is to eventually remove it
since we don't need it anymore after the removal of the global
gpio_descs array. This will again interfere with the numbering of GPIO
chips that do not have a base number provided.

Note that I don't really like this, either - but the problem is the
GPIO integer interface. Until everyone has upgraded to gpiod and we
have a replacement for the current sysfs interface (this will take a
while) we have to cope with this. This issue has been bothering users
for years, so this time I'd like to try and solve it the less ugly
way. If there is a better solution, of course I'm all for it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists