[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201118210530.2liwy4sywichojry@sekiro>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:10:36 +0100
From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
CC: <cristian.birsan@...rochip.com>, <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: dts: at91: add pincontrol node for USB Host
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 04:26:52PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hello,
>
> On 18/11/2020 16:03:36+0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > At first glance, there is no trivial way to register the pin range in the
> > pinctrl-at91 driver. There is one driver for the pinctrl and one for the gpio.
> > I am open to suggestions to fix it in the pinctrl-at91 driver as well if there
> > is an elegant way (I have some in mind, but there are not) without having to
> > refactor the driver.
> >
>
> But shouldn't that driver be refactored at some point anyway? I know you
> are moving away with new SoCs but it causes real issues. For example,
> gpio hogs are not working, this is impacting some of your customers.
>
I agree, maintainance of this driver is difficult because of its design.
Unfortunately, I doubt being able to hadnle a refactoring of this driver in a
near future.
> The other thing is the weird probe order preventing a nice cleanup of
> the platform code.
True. IMO, having gpio controlers probed before pinctrl is one of the reason
which prevents a trivial fix.
Regards
Ludovic
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists