* [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
@ 2017-01-25 15:26 Jean Delvare
2017-01-25 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2017-01-25 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-gpio
Cc: LKML, Mika Westerberg, Heikki Krogerus, Linus Walleij,
Mathias Nyman, Takashi Iwai
The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
users this option.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
---
This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but
also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there
any way to push this forward?
drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-4.7-rc7.orig/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig 2016-07-12 14:35:36.024835842 +0200
+++ linux-4.7-rc7/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig 2016-07-12 14:35:44.735904433 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
#
config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL
- bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
+ tristate "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
depends on GPIOLIB && ACPI
select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
select PINMUX
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-25 15:26 [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate Jean Delvare
@ 2017-01-25 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-25 16:16 ` Mika Westerberg
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-01-25 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare
Cc: linux-gpio, LKML, Mika Westerberg, Heikki Krogerus,
Linus Walleij, Mathias Nyman, Takashi Iwai
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
> The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> users this option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Looks okay to me.
FWIW:
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> ---
> This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but
> also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there
> any way to push this forward?
>
> drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- linux-4.7-rc7.orig/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig 2016-07-12 14:35:36.024835842 +0200
> +++ linux-4.7-rc7/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig 2016-07-12 14:35:44.735904433 +0200
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> #
>
> config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL
> - bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
> + tristate "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
> depends on GPIOLIB && ACPI
> select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
> select PINMUX
>
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-25 15:26 [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate Jean Delvare
2017-01-25 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-01-25 16:16 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-26 9:05 ` Jean Delvare
2017-01-26 8:37 ` Heikki Krogerus
2017-01-26 8:55 ` Linus Walleij
3 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mika Westerberg @ 2017-01-25 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare
Cc: linux-gpio, LKML, Heikki Krogerus, Linus Walleij, Mathias Nyman,
Takashi Iwai
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:26:08PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> users this option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Assuming you have checked that nothing breaks in Baytrail, I'm fine with
this change,
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-25 15:26 [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate Jean Delvare
2017-01-25 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-25 16:16 ` Mika Westerberg
@ 2017-01-26 8:37 ` Heikki Krogerus
2017-01-26 8:55 ` Linus Walleij
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Heikki Krogerus @ 2017-01-26 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare
Cc: linux-gpio, LKML, Mika Westerberg, Linus Walleij, Mathias Nyman,
Takashi Iwai
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:26:08PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> users this option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
OK by me. FWIW.
Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Thanks,
--
heikki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-25 15:26 [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate Jean Delvare
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-26 8:37 ` Heikki Krogerus
@ 2017-01-26 8:55 ` Linus Walleij
2017-01-26 9:19 ` Mika Westerberg
3 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-01-26 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare, Paul Gortmaker
Cc: linux-gpio, LKML, Mika Westerberg, Heikki Krogerus,
Mathias Nyman, Takashi Iwai
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
> The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> users this option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
> This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but
> also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there
> any way to push this forward?
I see ACKs for this patch, but in my git I also have:
commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6
pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular
Acked by Mika.
So which one is it going to be?
If this should be applied, the previous patch from Paul Gortmaker
should be reverted first. Especially the runtime PM parts seem
important to get back.
Then I want a patch reverting that and adding this tristate in one.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-25 16:16 ` Mika Westerberg
@ 2017-01-26 9:05 ` Jean Delvare
2017-01-26 9:29 ` Mika Westerberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2017-01-26 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mika Westerberg
Cc: linux-gpio, LKML, Heikki Krogerus, Linus Walleij, Mathias Nyman,
Takashi Iwai, Paul Gortmaker
Hi Mika and all,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:16:51 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:26:08PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> > users this option.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
>
> Assuming you have checked that nothing breaks in Baytrail, I'm fine with
> this change,
I have not, as I do not have access to any Baytrail hardware. This is
the very reason why I'd like this code to be buildable as a module: I'm
not happy with a useless 50 kB driver being loaded on all my systems. I
was hopping someone at Intel would have access to the hardware to
perform the test.
Meanwhile I have found that my patch is not good, because since I wrote
it, Paul Gortmaker remove the module glue code from the driver itself:
commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6
Author: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date: Mon Jun 6 22:43:01 2016 -0400
pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular
This would have to be reverted first. Paul, do I understand it
correctly that the commit above was generated automatically and was not
specific to the pinctrl-baytrail driver?
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-26 8:55 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2017-01-26 9:19 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-26 9:26 ` Takashi Iwai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mika Westerberg @ 2017-01-26 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij
Cc: Jean Delvare, Paul Gortmaker, linux-gpio, LKML, Heikki Krogerus,
Mathias Nyman, Takashi Iwai
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:55:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> > users this option.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but
> > also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there
> > any way to push this forward?
>
> I see ACKs for this patch, but in my git I also have:
>
> commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6
> pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular
>
> Acked by Mika.
Heh, yeah we even removed possibility to unbind the driver with that
commit. Totally forgot that one.
> So which one is it going to be?
Good question. I'm fine with both but I would really like to get some
confirmation that turning the driver to module actually does not break
anything.
I have one Minnowboard MAX here but it does not do any ACPI magic for
GPIOs so testing on that one might not catch all possible issues.
> If this should be applied, the previous patch from Paul Gortmaker
> should be reverted first. Especially the runtime PM parts seem
> important to get back.
Runtime PM actually does not do anything - there is no way to power down
the GPIO controller in Baytrail.
> Then I want a patch reverting that and adding this tristate in one.
I agree + really good explanation in the changelog why this was done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-26 9:19 ` Mika Westerberg
@ 2017-01-26 9:26 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-01-26 9:38 ` Mika Westerberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Takashi Iwai @ 2017-01-26 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mika Westerberg
Cc: Linus Walleij, Jean Delvare, Paul Gortmaker, linux-gpio, LKML,
Heikki Krogerus, Mathias Nyman
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:31 +0100,
Mika Westerberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:55:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> > > users this option.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but
> > > also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there
> > > any way to push this forward?
> >
> > I see ACKs for this patch, but in my git I also have:
> >
> > commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6
> > pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular
> >
> > Acked by Mika.
>
> Heh, yeah we even removed possibility to unbind the driver with that
> commit. Totally forgot that one.
>
> > So which one is it going to be?
>
> Good question. I'm fine with both but I would really like to get some
> confirmation that turning the driver to module actually does not break
> anything.
I guess it would break things on some machines if the module loading
order isn't setup properly. For example, it's known that
pinctrl-cherrytrail breaks MMC or others if it's loaded too lately.
On distros, we often work around it by a specific module loading order
in initrd.
But this doesn't mean that the modularization itself is wrong. It's
merely a setup issue.
thanks,
Takashi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-26 9:05 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2017-01-26 9:29 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-27 8:55 ` Jean Delvare
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mika Westerberg @ 2017-01-26 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare
Cc: linux-gpio, LKML, Heikki Krogerus, Linus Walleij, Mathias Nyman,
Takashi Iwai, Paul Gortmaker
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:05:06AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Mika and all,
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:16:51 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:26:08PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> > > users this option.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Assuming you have checked that nothing breaks in Baytrail, I'm fine with
> > this change,
>
> I have not, as I do not have access to any Baytrail hardware. This is
> the very reason why I'd like this code to be buildable as a module: I'm
> not happy with a useless 50 kB driver being loaded on all my systems. I
> was hopping someone at Intel would have access to the hardware to
> perform the test.
We do not have all the possible hardware here. I have one Minnowboard
MAX which I can test this on (like I commented in the other email) but
it does not have any ACPI GPIO OpRegion stuff that is present in many
Baytrail based laptops out there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-26 9:26 ` Takashi Iwai
@ 2017-01-26 9:38 ` Mika Westerberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mika Westerberg @ 2017-01-26 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Takashi Iwai
Cc: Linus Walleij, Jean Delvare, Paul Gortmaker, linux-gpio, LKML,
Heikki Krogerus, Mathias Nyman
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:26:56AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> I guess it would break things on some machines if the module loading
> order isn't setup properly. For example, it's known that
> pinctrl-cherrytrail breaks MMC or others if it's loaded too lately.
Yes, if you have rootfs on eMMC and it requires a GPIO then of course
you need to make sure your initrd includes the necessary drivers. Same
goes with other media that can be used as rootfs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate
2017-01-26 9:29 ` Mika Westerberg
@ 2017-01-27 8:55 ` Jean Delvare
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2017-01-27 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Takashi Iwai
Cc: Mika Westerberg, linux-gpio, LKML, Heikki Krogerus,
Linus Walleij, Mathias Nyman, Paul Gortmaker
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:29:11 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:05:06AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I have not, as I do not have access to any Baytrail hardware. This is
> > the very reason why I'd like this code to be buildable as a module: I'm
> > not happy with a useless 50 kB driver being loaded on all my systems. I
> > was hopping someone at Intel would have access to the hardware to
> > perform the test.
>
> We do not have all the possible hardware here. I have one Minnowboard
> MAX which I can test this on (like I commented in the other email) but
> it does not have any ACPI GPIO OpRegion stuff that is present in many
> Baytrail based laptops out there.
Takashi, do you have any such laptop or know anyone at SUSE who does
and could test?
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-27 8:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-25 15:26 [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate Jean Delvare
2017-01-25 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-25 16:16 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-26 9:05 ` Jean Delvare
2017-01-26 9:29 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-27 8:55 ` Jean Delvare
2017-01-26 8:37 ` Heikki Krogerus
2017-01-26 8:55 ` Linus Walleij
2017-01-26 9:19 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-26 9:26 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-01-26 9:38 ` Mika Westerberg
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.