[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YaimotqSgHzS2wdA@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:57:38 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/6] gpiolib: allow to specify the firmware node in
struct gpio_chip
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:04 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
...
> Let me maybe rephrase the problem: currently, for GPIO devices
> instantiating multiple banks created outside of the OF or ACPI
> frameworks (e.g. instantiated manually and configured using a
> hierarchy of software nodes with a single parent swnode and a number
> of child swnodes representing the children), it is impossible to
> assign firmware nodes other than the one representing the top GPIO
> device to the gpiochip child devices.
>
> In fact if we want to drop the OF APIs entirely from gpiolib - this
> would be the right first step as for gpio-sim it actually replaces the
> gc->of_node = some_of_node; assignment that OF-based drivers do for
> sub-nodes defining banks and it does work with device-tree (I verified
> that too) thanks to the fwnode abstraction layer.
In exchange of acknowledgements I confirm that I understood the issue
you are describing. What I still don't like is this band-aid:ish approach.
What we really need is to replace of_node by fwnode in GPIO library once
for all. But it can be done later after your simulation series (or before,
i.o.w. independently), hence I propose to update TODO and do it separately.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists