[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYf4HUaV-Pjr81WjLbzy9zdAnyFWs9gPayPC6-3OjHQwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:57:00 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: 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, Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] reset: Instantiate reset GPIO controller for
shared reset-gpios
Hi Krzysztof,
something is odd with the addresses on this patch, because neither GPIO
maintainer is on CC nor linux-gpio@...r, and it's such a GPIO-related
patch. We only saw it through side effects making <linux/gpio/driver.h>
optional, as required by this patch.
Please also CC Geert Uytterhoeven, the author of the GPIO aggregator.
i.e. this:
> 2. !GPIOLIB stub:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240125081601.118051-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:53 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> 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>
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
(...)
In my naive view, this implements the following:
reset -> virtual "gpio" -> many physical gpios[0..n]
So if there was already a way in the kernel to map one GPIO to
many GPIOs, the framework could just use that with a simple
single GPIO?
See the bindings in:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-delay.yaml
This is handled by drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c.
This supports a 1-to-1 map: one GPIO in, one GPIO out, same offset.
So if that is extended to support 1-to-many, this problem is solved.
Proposed solution: add a single boolean property such as
aggregate-all-gpios; to the gpio-delay node, making it provide
one single gpio at offset 0 on the consumer side, and refuse any
more consumers.
This will also solve the problem with induced delays on
some GPIO lines as I can see was discussed in the bindings,
the gpio aggregator already supports that, but it would work
fine with a delay being zero as well.
This avoids all the hackery with driver stubs etc as well.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists