[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b01c9ae-1603-6f42-431d-1158286557b5@i2se.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 12:23:49 +0100
From: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pinctrl: bcm: bcm2835: Switch to use
->add_pin_ranges()
Hi Andy,
Am 13.01.23 um 22:31 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:13:23PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Am 13.01.23 um 18:10 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> ...
>
>>> v2: fixed compilation issues (LKP), Cc'ed to the author of original code
>>>
>>> Btw, the commit d2b67744fd99 ("pinctrl: bcm2835: implement hook for
>>> missing gpio-ranges") seems problematic in the fist place due to
>>> odd of_node_put() call. I dunno how that part had been tested, or
>>> how it's supposed to work, i.e. where is the counterpart of_node_get().
>>> Anyway this change drops it for good.
>> The countpart is in of_pinctrl_get(). I was just following the pattern like
>> in other drivers like gpio-rockchip. The original commit has been tested by
>> Florian Fainelli and me. I'm not sure if it's safe to drop it completely.
> Please, elaborate how of_pinctrl_get() increases refcount of the parameter.
> Maybe I'm looking into a wrong place?
>
>> Btw this is not the only platform affected by the gpio-ranges compatibility
>> issue [1].
> This is the only one that uses unnecessary added callback.
i didn't have access to any of the other platforms which were also
affected. So i thought providing a general solution would be good idea.
I wasn't aware of add_pin_ranges().
Since i was annoyed that nobody cared about DTB backward compatibility,
i send out a RFC series to fix the GPIO hog regression which breaks the
LEDs on the Raspberry Pi. Nobody complained about it.
>
>>> Perhaps we can check gpio-ranges property presence inside the GPIO
>>> library, so this ->add_pin_ranges() won't be called at all.
>> I thought this could be very platform specific, so i implemented a hook. But
>> yes my initial hack modified gpiolib-of [2].
> The point is that possibly documentation of ->add_pin_ranges() should be
> amended to take care of the cases like this. We don't need two or more
> hooks to do the same, esp. taking into account that OF specific doesn't
> cover other cases.
>
>> [1] - https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/20180412190138.12372-1-chunkeey@gmail.com/
>>
>> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/75266ed1-666a-138b-80f1-ae9a06b7bdf3@i2se.com/
>>
>>> Also I would like to understand the dance around checking for pin
>>> control device. The original commit lacks of comments in the non-trivial
>>> code.
> Any comment on this?
Do you mean the NULL check? of_pinctrl_get() could return NULL, but
pinctrl_dev_get_devname() directly access the dev member.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists