From: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
To: Fenglin Wu <fenglinw@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
collinsd@codeaurora.org, aghayal@codeaurora.org,
wruan@codeaurora.org, kgunda@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for qcom,gpios-disallowed property
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:51:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170829015112.GK3685@dragon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a9d4117d-9bc6-9273-7b8b-5b153c7a4ceb@codeaurora.org>
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
> 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-29 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-19 7:17 [PATCH V1] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Add support for qcom,gpios-disallowed property fenglinw-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ
2017-07-24 19:09 ` Rob Herring
2017-07-25 1:05 ` Fenglin Wu
2017-08-28 14:54 ` Shawn Guo
2017-08-29 1:03 ` Fenglin Wu
2017-08-29 1:51 ` Shawn Guo [this message]
2017-08-29 2:04 ` Fenglin Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170829015112.GK3685@dragon \
--to=shawnguo@kernel.org \
--cc=aghayal@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=fenglinw@codeaurora.org \
--cc=kgunda@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=wruan@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).