Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1250360 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 08:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-20 06:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: axp20x: Add support for RSB based AXP223 PMIC Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2015-10-19 08:10 +0200
Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: axp20x: Add support for RSB based AXP223 PMIC Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> - 2015-10-19 08:30 +0200
Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: axp20x: Add support for RSB based AXP223 PMIC Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2015-10-19 20:50 +0200
Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: axp20x: Add support for RSB based AXP223 PMIC Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> - 2015-10-20 06:10 +0200
| From | Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 08:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: axp20x: Add support for RSB based AXP223 PMIC |
| Message-ID | <qlbNU-49Z-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:46:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Maxime Ripard > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32:19AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >> The AXP223 is a new PMIC commonly paired with Allwinner A23/A33 SoCs. > >> It is functionally identical to AXP221; only the regulator default > >> voltage/status and the external host interface are different. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> > >> --- > >> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 ++++++ > >> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-core.c | 2 + > >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h | 1 + > >> 5 files changed, 109 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig > >> index 9ba3feb3f2fc..6e5edb61d42e 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig > >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig > >> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ config MFD_BCM590XX > >> config MFD_AXP20X > >> bool "X-Powers AXP series PMICs" > >> select MFD_AXP20X_I2C > >> + select MFD_AXP20X_RSB > >> > >> config MFD_AXP20X_CORE > >> bool > >> @@ -102,6 +103,17 @@ config MFD_AXP20X_I2C > >> components like regulators or the PEK (Power Enable Key) under the > >> corresponding menus. > >> > >> +config MFD_AXP20X_RSB > >> + bool "X-Powers AXP series RSB PMICs" > >> + select MFD_AXP20X_CORE > >> + depends on SUNXI_RSB=y > > > > Do we need that? Even if the bus is compiled as a module, the driver > > will not be probed before that, will it? > > There's a compile/link dependency on the __devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb(). If it's exported, everything should be fine, no? > And both drivers are bool, i.e. can't be compiled as a module. What we > don't want is enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without SUNXI_RSB. What would really be the issue here? The driver wouldn't be probed, and that's it. Or am I missing something? Maxime > AFAIK the same goes for the I2C version. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlc7g-4wB-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1250360 |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:46:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Maxime Ripard >> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32:19AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> >> The AXP223 is a new PMIC commonly paired with Allwinner A23/A33 SoCs. >> >> It is functionally identical to AXP221; only the regulator default >> >> voltage/status and the external host interface are different. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> >> >> --- >> >> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 ++++++ >> >> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + >> >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-core.c | 2 + >> >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h | 1 + >> >> 5 files changed, 109 insertions(+) >> >> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> >> index 9ba3feb3f2fc..6e5edb61d42e 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> >> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ config MFD_BCM590XX >> >> config MFD_AXP20X >> >> bool "X-Powers AXP series PMICs" >> >> select MFD_AXP20X_I2C >> >> + select MFD_AXP20X_RSB >> >> >> >> config MFD_AXP20X_CORE >> >> bool >> >> @@ -102,6 +103,17 @@ config MFD_AXP20X_I2C >> >> components like regulators or the PEK (Power Enable Key) under the >> >> corresponding menus. >> >> >> >> +config MFD_AXP20X_RSB >> >> + bool "X-Powers AXP series RSB PMICs" >> >> + select MFD_AXP20X_CORE >> >> + depends on SUNXI_RSB=y >> > >> > Do we need that? Even if the bus is compiled as a module, the driver >> > will not be probed before that, will it? >> >> There's a compile/link dependency on the __devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb(). > > If it's exported, everything should be fine, no? > >> And both drivers are bool, i.e. can't be compiled as a module. What we >> don't want is enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without SUNXI_RSB. > > What would really be the issue here? The driver wouldn't be probed, > and that's it. Or am I missing something? The RSB bus / slave device functions have been merged into the RSB driver itself. Enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without enabling SUNXI_RSB means that RSB bus/device related functions are not compiled, i.e. link error: drivers/built-in.o: In function `axp20x_rsb_probe': /home/wens/sunxi/linux/drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c:64: undefined reference to `__devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb' drivers/built-in.o: In function `axp20x_rsb_driver_init': /home/wens/sunxi/linux/drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c:89: undefined reference to `sunxi_rsb_driver_register' Makefile:927: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed The dependency is like "depends on I2C=y" for the I2C version. If you're asking about why "=y", I guess it's because MFD_AXP20X_RSB is bool, and if the depended on symbol is a tristate, which it actually is for I2c, we'd want it to be compiled in, and not built as a module, or again we'd get a undefined reference link error. Would it make sense to have SUNXI_RSB as a tristate symbol, i.e. can be built as a module? I'm nore sure. For multi-platform kernels, probably? Currently it isn't. Hope this clears it up. Regards ChenYu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlnFo-4ut-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1250369 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:20:29PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Maxime Ripard > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:46:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Maxime Ripard > >> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32:19AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >> >> The AXP223 is a new PMIC commonly paired with Allwinner A23/A33 SoCs. > >> >> It is functionally identical to AXP221; only the regulator default > >> >> voltage/status and the external host interface are different. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> > >> >> --- > >> >> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 ++++++ > >> >> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > >> >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-core.c | 2 + > >> >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> >> include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h | 1 + > >> >> 5 files changed, 109 insertions(+) > >> >> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig > >> >> index 9ba3feb3f2fc..6e5edb61d42e 100644 > >> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig > >> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig > >> >> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ config MFD_BCM590XX > >> >> config MFD_AXP20X > >> >> bool "X-Powers AXP series PMICs" > >> >> select MFD_AXP20X_I2C > >> >> + select MFD_AXP20X_RSB > >> >> > >> >> config MFD_AXP20X_CORE > >> >> bool > >> >> @@ -102,6 +103,17 @@ config MFD_AXP20X_I2C > >> >> components like regulators or the PEK (Power Enable Key) under the > >> >> corresponding menus. > >> >> > >> >> +config MFD_AXP20X_RSB > >> >> + bool "X-Powers AXP series RSB PMICs" > >> >> + select MFD_AXP20X_CORE > >> >> + depends on SUNXI_RSB=y > >> > > >> > Do we need that? Even if the bus is compiled as a module, the driver > >> > will not be probed before that, will it? > >> > >> There's a compile/link dependency on the __devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb(). > > > > If it's exported, everything should be fine, no? > > > >> And both drivers are bool, i.e. can't be compiled as a module. What we > >> don't want is enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without SUNXI_RSB. > > > > What would really be the issue here? The driver wouldn't be probed, > > and that's it. Or am I missing something? > > The RSB bus / slave device functions have been merged into the RSB driver > itself. Enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without enabling SUNXI_RSB means that RSB > bus/device related functions are not compiled, i.e. link error: > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `axp20x_rsb_probe': > /home/wens/sunxi/linux/drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c:64: undefined > reference to `__devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb' > drivers/built-in.o: In function `axp20x_rsb_driver_init': > /home/wens/sunxi/linux/drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c:89: undefined > reference to `sunxi_rsb_driver_register' > Makefile:927: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed > > The dependency is like "depends on I2C=y" for the I2C version. > > If you're asking about why "=y", I guess it's because MFD_AXP20X_RSB is bool, > and if the depended on symbol is a tristate, which it actually is for I2c, > we'd want it to be compiled in, and not built as a module, or again we'd get > a undefined reference link error. Yeah, but my point was more why not have both the RSB driver and MFD as a module? The part where RSB is a module and the driver is statically built doesn't make sense (and I don't think a depends on allow that), but having both make sense. > Would it make sense to have SUNXI_RSB as a tristate symbol, i.e. can be built > as a module? I'm nore sure. For multi-platform kernels, probably? Currently it > isn't. Yes, it's better for multi-platform / distro kernels. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 06:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlwpk-Jq-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1251001 |
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:20:29PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Maxime Ripard >> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:46:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Maxime Ripard >> >> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32:19AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> >> >> The AXP223 is a new PMIC commonly paired with Allwinner A23/A33 SoCs. >> >> >> It is functionally identical to AXP221; only the regulator default >> >> >> voltage/status and the external host interface are different. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 ++++++ >> >> >> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + >> >> >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-core.c | 2 + >> >> >> drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h | 1 + >> >> >> 5 files changed, 109 insertions(+) >> >> >> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> >> >> index 9ba3feb3f2fc..6e5edb61d42e 100644 >> >> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> >> >> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ config MFD_BCM590XX >> >> >> config MFD_AXP20X >> >> >> bool "X-Powers AXP series PMICs" >> >> >> select MFD_AXP20X_I2C >> >> >> + select MFD_AXP20X_RSB >> >> >> >> >> >> config MFD_AXP20X_CORE >> >> >> bool >> >> >> @@ -102,6 +103,17 @@ config MFD_AXP20X_I2C >> >> >> components like regulators or the PEK (Power Enable Key) under the >> >> >> corresponding menus. >> >> >> >> >> >> +config MFD_AXP20X_RSB >> >> >> + bool "X-Powers AXP series RSB PMICs" >> >> >> + select MFD_AXP20X_CORE >> >> >> + depends on SUNXI_RSB=y >> >> > >> >> > Do we need that? Even if the bus is compiled as a module, the driver >> >> > will not be probed before that, will it? >> >> >> >> There's a compile/link dependency on the __devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb(). >> > >> > If it's exported, everything should be fine, no? >> > >> >> And both drivers are bool, i.e. can't be compiled as a module. What we >> >> don't want is enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without SUNXI_RSB. >> > >> > What would really be the issue here? The driver wouldn't be probed, >> > and that's it. Or am I missing something? >> >> The RSB bus / slave device functions have been merged into the RSB driver >> itself. Enabling MFD_AXP20X_RSB without enabling SUNXI_RSB means that RSB >> bus/device related functions are not compiled, i.e. link error: >> >> drivers/built-in.o: In function `axp20x_rsb_probe': >> /home/wens/sunxi/linux/drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c:64: undefined >> reference to `__devm_regmap_init_sunxi_rsb' >> drivers/built-in.o: In function `axp20x_rsb_driver_init': >> /home/wens/sunxi/linux/drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c:89: undefined >> reference to `sunxi_rsb_driver_register' >> Makefile:927: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed >> >> The dependency is like "depends on I2C=y" for the I2C version. >> >> If you're asking about why "=y", I guess it's because MFD_AXP20X_RSB is bool, >> and if the depended on symbol is a tristate, which it actually is for I2c, >> we'd want it to be compiled in, and not built as a module, or again we'd get >> a undefined reference link error. > > Yeah, but my point was more why not have both the RSB driver and MFD > as a module? The part where RSB is a module and the driver is > statically built doesn't make sense (and I don't think a depends on > allow that), but having both make sense. Ok. I have no problem with building them as modules. I was just following what the original driver did. It seems half the mfd driver can be built as modules, while the other half can only be built-in. I don't know what the criteria is here. >> Would it make sense to have SUNXI_RSB as a tristate symbol, i.e. can be built >> as a module? I'm nore sure. For multi-platform kernels, probably? Currently it >> isn't. > > Yes, it's better for multi-platform / distro kernels. I guess I'll do a follow up patch for sunxi-rsb? Regards ChenYu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web