Message-ID: <20180118075629.GR2989@rfolt0960.corp.atmel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:56:29 +0100
From:   Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: add consumer variant for gpio request

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 06:07:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Ludovic Desroches
> <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 04:33:29PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> >> First of all, the main architectural issue with current pin control
> >> design is so called "states". It's quite artificial entity which is
> >> not represented by hardware per se.
> >>
> >> Instead we better to provide an API to pin configuration and pin
> >> muxing: I would like to switch to *this* pin function with *this* pin
> >> configuration.
> 
> > gpio_request_enable() allows to switch to the GPIO pin function.
> 
> ...as a particular case of "set this pin to this function".
> 
> > To clarify the situation, from my point of view there are two issues:
> >
> > - Several pin controllers didn't enabled the strict mode when they were
> >   introduced. Nowadays, enabling it will break several DTs. Maybe a DT
> >   property to enable/disable strict mode could do the trick: we remove
> >   pinctrl nodes (so pinmux + pinconf) for pins which will be requested
> >   by gpiod_request() and we set the strict property to true.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > - But... The GPIO pin configuration is missing.
> 
> Here you mixed up the things. Either we are talking about GPIO
> configuration (direction, enabling/disabling I/O buffers), or we are
> talking about pin configuration (bias, drive strength, slew rate,
> debounce, etc.).

I was talking about the pin configuration of the GPIO so about bias,
drive strength, etc.

> 
> >  Some configuration features
> >   have been added, we can continue to add new ones but I am not sure
> >   it's the best solution.
> 
> See below.
> 
> >  At the moment, we rely on a single cell to
> >   manage the configuration. It may not be enough and each time a new pin
> >   configuration will appear, it will have to be added both to the gpiolib
> >   and pinconf.
> 
> >> Second, the pin control and GPIOs are orthogonal as your hardware
> >> confirms. The propagating pin configuration or muxing via GPIO API
> >> looks to me a wrong direction.
> >>
> >
> > I agree but it seems we have started to follow this path.
> 
> Which is still wrong and nothing prevents us to just stop here and
> consider better way.
> 
> The issue is how we historically represent pins inside kernel and how
> hardware evolves at the same time.
> 
> Looking from now retrospectively I can state the following:
> - each GPIO controller *might* have (few) capabilities of pin configuration
> - pin control may not necessary have GPIO function of the pin
> 
> Design is now GPIO oriented while it should be pin oriented.
> 

Agree

> So, instead of littering GPIO API, would we consider to redesign a bit
> from the above point of view?
> 
> (Read ahead: to be backward compatible and be more friendly for simple
> GPIO IPs it would make sense to leave some of the basic pin properties
> to be controlled from GPIO API, otherwise forget completely about GPIO
> driver, and think of pin control driver for new complex IPs)
> 
> [pin]: might have attached set of functions, set of [electrical] properties.
> It might be re-configured run time in terms of function and configuration.
> It might have none, one, or more owners (this is already an OS abstraction)
> 
> Thus, the core function is pin request, while GPIO request is just a
> particular case.
> Owner of the pin is defined independently on what function or
> configuration is chosen.
> 
> Therefore, we will have something like this (permissions):
> - none (no one can do anything, except acquiring an ownership == requesting pin)
> - exclusive (only one user allowed to cover all properties of the pin)
> - shared (several owners can do modify all or selected properties)
> - shared for all (anyone can do anything, perhaps we don't need this)
> 

It seems nice.

> >> To the point of the specific issue you are trying to solve.  I would
> >> rather agree with Maxime:
> >>
> >> "Something like "if the configuration is a gpio, and my pinctrl driver
> >> is also a gpio controller, and that gpiod_request is being called on
> >> that pin, hand over the reference"
> 
> > Sorry, what do you see behind "hand over the reference"?
> 
> This is similar to what I called before as "shared" ownership. To be
> precise, transformation "exclusive" to "shared".
> 
> >> Just in case of architectural review imagine a below case. We have two
> >> UART devices which share same pins, and at the same time their pins
> >> can be switched to GPIO function. So, use cases and questions:
> >> - allow potential driver to switch between UARTs at run time
> >> - allow UART driver to switch mode between no flow control (2 wire
> >> mode) and HW flow (4 wire mode), though not specifically at run time
> >> - allow GPIO function for some pins at run time to support OOB wake
> >> up, for example, when UART is a console
> >>
> >
> > I have the feeling that 1 and 2 are achievable with pinctrl states. 3 may be
> > also acheviable excepting if the pin is part of a pinctrl state.
> 
> Please, no artificial states here. It brings more issues than solves.
> Deterministic is:
> - pin electrical properties
> - current (active) function
> - current (active) owner(s)
> 
> Whatever currently means "states" they are defined per owner basis.
> 
> >> More caveats:
> >> - switching and reconfiguring pins at run time is a bad idea for the
> >> start (only some exceptions can be applied, see above) because of
> >> electrical properties of the devices and potential damage to the
> >> hardware
> >> - switching to GPIO is allowed at run time for the purpose of OOB wake source
> >> - after switching to GPIO and freeing it the pin configuration (and
> >> perhaps muxing) would return back to previous (before GPIO) settings
> >> (this would be helpful to case described above: OOB wake up)
> >>
> >
> > I share another case which is the one motivating me to do these patches.
> >
> > I am writing a driver for a new device which uses several lines. The lines used
> > depends on the firmware loaded so there is no reason to reserve all the
> > lines and so the pins corresponding to these lines.
> 
> Reserve how? In DT?
> 

Yes with the usual pinctrl node describing all the pins which can be used by
the device.

Since the device pins is only SoC dependant, I would like to get the
pins list in the driver (depending on the compatible string) or using
line_name-gpio in the DT. I am not sure about which solution is the best
one. Then, once the firmware is loaded, I can pick only the pins I need.

> > The pins will be requested as GPIOs because the pin controller in this specific
> > case is bypassed. I mean, if the device uses a line, it will take the ownership
> > even if it is muxed to a function. I want to prevent this.
> 
> Yes, valid point.
> 
> > Before using the line, I'll request the pin as a GPIO. If an error occurs (this
> > is why I need to enable the strict mode), it means the pin is already muxed and
> > we are going to break the device which uses it.
> 
> Correct, or any other function.
> 
> What we need is pin_request_function() API and pin_set_config(). GPIO
> is kinda legacy (in terns of configuring and controlling pins).
> 
> So, consider my idea above about ownership. It would give you less
> pain how to proceed with pins. In DT or ACPI we may supply a property
> to tell OS how ownership has to be handled:
> strict (or "exclusive", one owner for pin properties), "shared", or
> "none" (not requested, first come, first served)
> 

I have to clear up my mind regarding your interesting proposals.

> Yes, pin function might need a special type of owners to do power
> management, for example, but in above scheme it would be just a
> subtype of "shared" (okay, "strict" in that way also would "shared"
> but only for PM core).
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists