[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170306100220.droey65uq2ew3mzu@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:02:20 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Janusz Uzycki <j.uzycki@...roma.com.pl>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tty/serial: sh-sci: remove uneeded IS_ERR_OR_NULL
calls
Cc += LinusW
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:53:27AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> >> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:49:39AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> >> > Given that mctrl-gpio can be useful on legacy platforms, a device could
> >> >> > silently run without cts-gpio even there.
> >> >>
> >> >> On platforms were CONFIG_GPIOLIB=n, this is not true, so the issue is moot.
> >> >>
> >> >> All serial drivers using (optional) mctrl-gpio have this in Kconfig:
> >> >>
> >> >> select SERIAL_MCTRL_GPIO if GPIOLIB
> >> >>
> >> >> So they will use mctrl-gpio when GPIOLIB is enabled.
> >> >> If GPIOPLIB is disabled, no flow control GPIOs are expected, and the
> >> >> driver should not break that case.
> >> >
> >> > So it all boils down to the question: Is GPIOLIB=n enough to assume no
> >> > gpio is needed?
> >> >
> >> > I'd say it is not.
> >>
> >> How does the platform register these GPIOs when GPIOPLIB is not enabled by
> >> the platform, and gpiod_add_lookup_table() is thus not available?
> >
> > Obviously the platformcode cannot. In this case you could argue that
> > platformcode shouldn't register the device if a gpio is necessary. But
> > this reasoning doesn't work for (DT=y || ACPI=y) && GPIOLIB=n.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to code this in each driver (something like:
> >
> > if (IS_ENABLED(GPIOLIB) || device_is_instantiated_by_dt(dev) || device_is_instantiated_by_acpi(dev))
> > gpios = mctrl_gpio_init(...);
> > else
> > gpios = NULL;
> >
> > ). Putting this into GPIOLIB is the right approach, and so this is
> > another argument for HALFGPIOLIB. This would fix mctrl_gpio_init en
> > passant.
>
> Do we have platforms where DT=y || ACPI=y, but GPIOLIB=n?
> Ah, x86 ;-)
Yeah, and I think rm -r arch/x86 won't be acceptable :-) I assume you
can also configure some arm or powerpc systems without GPIOLIB.
> Anyway, for sh-sci.c, platforms either have DT and GPIOLIB, or they do not
> need mctrl-gpio.
So we're in agreement now that HALFGPIOLIB is the way to go?
Linus, what do you think?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists