[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91158620-775e-4db1-9b8e-7154c6d66cd6@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:27:51 +0100
From: neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...cinc.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Liam Girdwood
<lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Frank Rowand
<frowand.list@...il.com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] reset: Instantiate reset GPIO controller for
shared reset-gpios
On 24/01/2024 08:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Devices sharing a reset GPIO could use the reset framework for
> coordinated handling of that shared GPIO line. We have several cases of
> such needs, at least for Devicetree-based platforms.
>
> If Devicetree-based device requests a reset line, while "resets"
> Devicetree property is missing but there is a "reset-gpios" one,
> instantiate a new "reset-gpio" platform device which will handle such
> reset line. This allows seamless handling of such shared reset-gpios
> without need of changing Devicetree binding [1].
>
> To avoid creating multiple "reset-gpio" platform devices, store the
> Devicetree "reset-gpios" GPIO specifiers used for new devices on a
> linked list. Later such Devicetree GPIO specifier (phandle to GPIO
> controller, GPIO number and GPIO flags) is used to check if reset
> controller for given GPIO was already registered.
>
> If two devices have conflicting "reset-gpios" property, e.g. with
> different ACTIVE_xxx flags, this would allow to spawn two separate
> "reset-gpio" devices, where the second would fail probing on busy GPIO
> request.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YXi5CUCEi7YmNxXM@robh.at.kernel.org/ [1]
> Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
> Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
> Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>
> ---
>
> Depends on previous of change.
> ---
> drivers/reset/core.c | 215 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/reset-controller.h | 4 +
> 2 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c
> index 4d5a78d3c085..60a8a33c4419 100644
> --- a/drivers/reset/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c
<snip>
> + }
> +
> + ret = __reset_add_reset_gpio_lookup(id, args->np, args->args[0],
> + args->args[1]);
What would happen with gpio controllers using #gpio-cells = <3> (or more) like allwinner,sun4i-a10-pinctrl.yaml ?
On this example the flags are args->args[2] so this would probably fail.
This would also fails badly with #gpio-cells = <1>, args->args[1] value would be undefined.
You should probably limit to args->args_count == 2 for now.
Neil
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_kfree;
> +
> + rgpio_dev->of_args = *args;
> + /*
> + * We keep the device_node reference, but of_args.np is put at the end
> + * of __of_reset_control_get(), so get it one more time.
> + * Hold reference as long as rgpio_dev memory is valid.
> + */
> + of_node_get(rgpio_dev->of_args.np);
> + pdev = platform_device_register_data(NULL, "reset-gpio", id,
> + &rgpio_dev->of_args,
> + sizeof(rgpio_dev->of_args));
<snip>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists