Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for qcom,gpios-disallowed property

From	Fenglin Wu <fenglinw@codeaurora.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for qcom,gpios-disallowed property
Date	2017-08-29 04:10 +0200
Message-ID	<ujE8x-4Za-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<u4Rr3-5eb-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujtGa-6PN-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujDct-4ow-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujDYR-4G4-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/29/2017 9:51 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:03:02AM +0800, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>> I agree the GPIO's ownership is configurable and it always configured at
>> the very beginning of the device boot up which is not visible by linux
>> kernel drivers/image. Normally, this configuration is fixed in one
>> platform and it's been protected and not allowed to be configured in
>> linux kernel driver. So from linux driver point of view, this is a
>> hardware configuration. I agree the coming patch "spmi: pmic-arb: Move
>> the ownership check to irq_chip callback" would fix the pinctrl-
>> spmi-gpio driver probe failure caused by the ownership mismatch, but
>> this is just hiding the mistake of the kernel configured the GPIOs which
>> not owned by APPS processor.
> 
> The kernel does everything just right, using the GPIO that device tree
> tells to use.  If there is something wrong about ownership check, it
> should be fault of that device tree specifies the wrong GPIO, or
> firmware doesn't configure ownership as needed.
> > Shawn
> 

If you thought that the driver registers pins for the GPIOs not owned by
APPS processor is correct, then this patch is no needed.
I agreed with others.
Thanks

Fenglin

>> And these GPIOs will be registered
>> successfully as pinctrl pins and any APPS processor consumer drivers
>> could use this pins. This is not correct even the select_state operation
>> for these pins would failed due to the mode protection in spmi write_cmd
>> calling. I am thinking that not allowing these pins to be register as
>> pinctrl pins should be more straightforward and easy understanding. So I
>> think this patch still have value even the probe failure has been fixed
>> by the coming spmi patch.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for  qcom,gpios-disallowed property Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> - 2017-08-28 17:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for  qcom,gpios-disallowed property Fenglin Wu <fenglinw@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-29 03:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for  qcom,gpios-disallowed property Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> - 2017-08-29 04:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for  qcom,gpios-disallowed property Fenglin Wu <fenglinw@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-29 04:10 +0200

csiph-web