linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] gpio/pinctrl: baytrail: move gpio driver from pinctrl to gpio directory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:53:22 -0700
From:	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, gnurou@...il.com,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] gpio/pinctrl: baytrail: move gpio driver from
 pinctrl to gpio directory

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:01:23AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:55:42AM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > Hi Mika,
> > 
> > Thanks for your feedback. See below my reply.
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:08:12AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:45:35AM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > > > Hi Mathias,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:35:43PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> > > > > On 13.10.2014 22:17, David Cohen wrote:
> > > > > > Even though GPIO module on Intel Bay Trail is able to control pin
> > > > > > functionality, it's unlikely Linux kernel driver will ever support it
> > > > > > since BIOS should handle all pin muxing itself.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Currently this driver does not register any pinctrl interface and
> > > > > > doesn't call any pinctrl interface. It just uses on internal functions
> > > > > > the 'struct pinctrl_gpio_range', which is a weak justification to not be
> > > > > > under gpio directory.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This discussion was held when gpio-baytrail was first submitted.
> > > > > These threads explain the gpio/pinctrl-baytrail history:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136981432427668&w=2
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137113578604763&w=2
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137155497023054&w=2
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for pointing that out.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > A proper pinctrl driver for baytrail is still not yet ruled out
> > > > 
> > > > Having it inside pinctrl directory is creating some confusion because
> > > > ppl expect it to implement the actual pinctrl interface.
> > > 
> > > A typical pinctrl driver can implement both a pinctrl interface and a
> > > GPIO interface. So it is not uncommon to look the GPIO drivers under
> > > drivers/pinctrl/*.
> > 
> > Agreed :)
> > But pinctrl-baytrail has no pinctrl interface, just gpio.
> 
> The hardware is capable of muxing pins etc. it just has not been
> implemented because we currently don't have need for anything else.
> I have seen that in some of our internal trees the driver is also muxing
> alternate functions to the pins (using non-pinctrl interface). So maybe
> it will get a full pinctrl support in the future.
> 
> We certainly don't want to move it from pinctrl to gpio and then back.
> 
> > > Furthermore the driver announces that it is a GPIO driver in its Kconfig
> > > entry:
> > > 
> > > config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL
> > >         bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
> > > 
> > > so I don't quite get why this would confuse people.
> > 
> > How come? You just wrote the inconsistence :)
> 
> Well, it says it is a "GPIO pin control" :-)

PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL means it implements pinctrl iterface. The text says
otherwise.

> 
> > We're enabling PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL to build a gpio only driver.
> > 
> > > 
> > > We are also planning to add more Intel pinctrl (real) drivers in the
> > > future. drivers/pinctrl/intel/* should be the place where people find
> > > the pinctrl/GPIO drivers for newer Intel hardware.
> > 
> > I fully agree pinctrl/gpio drivers should stay under drivers/pinctrl.
> > But we're talking about a gpio driver. IMHO we should at least mention
> > in the driver it lacks pinctrl interface currently but it will come in
> > future.
> 
> OK, why not.
> 
> > A side discussion would be why a distro would want to have the pinctrl
> > interface on Bay Trail. I'd assume any driver being the consumer of it
> > is likely to be wrong. When Linux boots, all pins' functions should be
> > already set.
> 
> In an ideal world, yes. However, the reality has shown that BIOS/FW gets
> these wrong and we need to work it around in the OS.

But we never upstream these workarounds, right? :)
That would be useful during internal development while we get a fix from
fw developers. Any driver upstreamed for Bay Trail actually using this
pinctrl interface is very likely to be wrong.

> 
> Also for devices like MinnowBoard MAX (which has Baytrail SoC), you
> actually might want to mux some other function out of certain pins.

I fully agree on this one. MinnowBoard MAX is a valid reason to expose
pinctrl interface. A TODO comment on Kconfig help text and/or on driver
should be enough then.

Br, David
--
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/