From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E01BC433EF for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1357308AbhLBL1m (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 06:27:42 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50348 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1357303AbhLBL1l (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 06:27:41 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567FCC061757 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 03:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id r11so114544228edd.9 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 03:24:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bgdev-pl.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f4a+EzbACgig+p7xOkp2ifXjK5uajP6BkkqXsYbKbAE=; b=WYTPITKcFaXMyEbEZP4sxRgNwRGOPb/4toN9fL4Hh+IbYOdRUvbOpDQ/s4NHgK8SMt P7u+cIt2rYfgYYS1MP5csEJ3uIdbP8aRWPD+JEwc8ohwh0d1Wi/kVVNIy31CUJdEf2oK dJeI+n71YHkZMhbMr0mC/oFcHiicCPvdnnkr53GmTFal4aBEgcp35leBaQ/+Z7Gzz8Na xUWd6kmwq0XC7yMp2Or8xOBTESYkWsfAqsDagJlJ9I8BYucOzSFYBGnEofkN3b16/yRp 5SLV2xqnZOcbo8ZO/pbFMUs1miXINNjsn+B13dx7CH1+O7SBHu+w+Pk/1u9nSxq0zTBv /5nA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f4a+EzbACgig+p7xOkp2ifXjK5uajP6BkkqXsYbKbAE=; b=D9qwy9CvZw7TW3P7s+N5Pi2f57AFNUpmUaUny+VWHKHR7JrZXoTd7+OAuerF6f+7uB uVWio0kcszZet6HLgGhXMvtDOzlcyT7TmAaQm3woXRCao3a1F+waYhJtr40BlTuLsiBP eKHCAmOdPoHvaLpbzxbDAO7AjwQ5elBtyhVIifqqwDOyhsDZvOHNYxD9yEEt8iLD2wxM Z3RG/+1P+ynsFMxnRTkqq8ffR9kJWr1e019/CCLWldSXat5QTjxR1K2Hy2KTNDrzsXwg 3qKTuczVfj1pBzhE3OQTf+kv7SijFsUL6QCCpeONCtEPZf1pFxaAVxQK0hpHCIBLuvDr dnCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lvVlmJxex3kuupdEsuQwYKRkVlEfI2jmh3fRf/RKfztmTcItw wFQ+g+ZlxwPWQGNSIUhDR/q8mTB97BvkR0+U2mFGIA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwliwbdbkdobUtjXvKiMGq95oXvFyQrc25uGLTf9cEdDVqkXxxW5XUCDkzqnG9wdV/p9ePnUKhaSJp79FVouqQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:75f0:: with SMTP id jz16mr14912881ejc.77.1638444257869; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 03:24:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211130154127.12272-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20211130154127.12272-3-brgl@bgdev.pl> In-Reply-To: From: Bartosz Golaszewski Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/6] gpiolib: allow to specify the firmware node in struct gpio_chip To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Kent Gibson , Linus Walleij , Shuah Khan , Geert Uytterhoeven , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:58 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:04 PM Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > ... > > > Let me maybe rephrase the problem: currently, for GPIO devices > > instantiating multiple banks created outside of the OF or ACPI > > frameworks (e.g. instantiated manually and configured using a > > hierarchy of software nodes with a single parent swnode and a number > > of child swnodes representing the children), it is impossible to > > assign firmware nodes other than the one representing the top GPIO > > device to the gpiochip child devices. > > > > In fact if we want to drop the OF APIs entirely from gpiolib - this > > would be the right first step as for gpio-sim it actually replaces the > > gc->of_node = some_of_node; assignment that OF-based drivers do for > > sub-nodes defining banks and it does work with device-tree (I verified > > that too) thanks to the fwnode abstraction layer. > > In exchange of acknowledgements I confirm that I understood the issue > you are describing. What I still don't like is this band-aid:ish approach. > What we really need is to replace of_node by fwnode in GPIO library once > for all. But it can be done later after your simulation series (or before, > i.o.w. independently), hence I propose to update TODO and do it separately. > But this is what we already do for OF. How would the core gpiolib know how the firmware nodes represent the banks? It's the driver's job to tell the framework which node corresponds with what. If anything, we should start replacing of_nodes with fwnodes in drivers and eventually we'd drop the of_node pointer from gpio_chip entirely, but we'd keep the fwnode pointer I added as the driver still needs to assign it itself. Again: I may be missing something here but I've been going through this on and on and can't figure out any other way. Looking at gpiolib-acpi.c I don't see it correctly assigning fwnodes to sub-devices either but I don't have any HW to test it. As for this series: I can't really drop this patch as gpio-sim relies on swnodes being correctly associated with gpio_chips to identify the gpiodevs from configfs callbacks. Bart