From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] gpio: of: Add DT overlay support for GPIO hogs
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 08:59:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVO7QvfdOEooJCVHDAwqzbZ_nYnZ6x97qVmFTyS+7kbKA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41e1c51e-bc17-779e-8c68-bf2e652871eb@gmail.com>
Hi Frank,
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:34 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/19 7:38 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > As GPIO hogs are configured at GPIO controller initialization time,
> > adding/removing GPIO hogs in DT overlays does not work.
> >
> > Add support for GPIO hogs described in DT overlays by registering an OF
> > reconfiguration notifier, to handle the addition and removal of GPIO hog
> > subnodes to/from a GPIO controller device node.
> >
> > Note that when a GPIO hog device node is being removed, its "gpios"
> > properties is no longer available, so we have to keep track of which
> > node a hog belongs to, which is done by adding a pointer to the hog's
> > device node to struct gpio_desc.
>
> If I have read the patches and the existing overlay source correctly,
> then some observations:
>
> - A gpio hog node added in an overlay will be properly processed.
>
> - A gpio hog node already existing in the live devicetree, but with a
> non-active status will be properly processed if the status of the
> gpio hog node is changed to "ok" in the overlay.
>
> - If a gpio hog node already exists in the live devicetree with an
> active status, then any updated or added properties in that gpio
> hog node in the overlay will have no effect.
>
> There is a scenario where the updated property would have an effect:
> apply a second overlay that sets the status to inactive, then apply
> a third overlay that sets the status back to active. This is a
> rather contrived example and I think it should be documented as
> not supported and the result undefined.
>
> It would be good to document this explicitly.
I didn't verify this in detail, but I believe the existing overlay
support for platform, i2c, and SPI devices behaves the same.
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> > +static int of_gpio_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
> > + void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct of_reconfig_data *rd = arg;
> > + struct gpio_chip *chip;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + switch (of_reconfig_get_state_change(action, arg)) {
> > + case OF_RECONFIG_CHANGE_ADD:
> > + if (!of_property_read_bool(rd->dn, "gpio-hog"))
> > + return NOTIFY_OK; /* not for us */
> > +
> > + if (of_node_test_and_set_flag(rd->dn, OF_POPULATED))
> > + return NOTIFY_OK;
>
> I don't think OF_POPULATED could be already set. It seems to be a
> bug if it is.
For a real gpio-hog it indeed is not. But this function is called for
every change made to the device tree (add a printk() and look at the
output during boot). So this serves as a (cheap) line of defense.
The of_find_gpiochip_by_node() call below is more expensive to call.
> > +
> > + chip = of_find_gpiochip_by_node(rd->dn->parent);
> > + if (chip == NULL)
> > + return NOTIFY_OK; /* not for us */
>
> If I understand correctly, "not for us" is a misleading comment.
> The notification is for the node rd->dn->parent, but the device
> does not exist, so we can't do the hogging at the moment. (If the
> device is created later, then the gpio hog child node will exist,
> and the init will "do the right thing" with the hog node -- so
> not a problem.)
This function is called for all additions to the device tree.
So rd->dn->parent may not even be a gpio controller node.
Hence unless this is a gpio controller node for this hog, this
notification is "not for us".
> > +
> > + ret = of_gpiochip_add_hog(chip, rd->dn);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + pr_err("%s: failed to add hogs for %pOF\n", __func__,
> > + rd->dn);
> > + of_node_clear_flag(rd->dn, OF_POPULATED);
> > + return notifier_from_errno(ret);
> > + }
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OF_RECONFIG_CHANGE_REMOVE:
> > + if (!of_node_check_flag(rd->dn, OF_POPULATED))
> > + return NOTIFY_OK; /* already depopulated */
>
> I don't think OF_POPULATED could be already cleared. It seems to be a
> bug if it is.
Same here. First line of defense.
> > +
> > + chip = of_find_gpiochip_by_node(rd->dn->parent);
> > + if (chip == NULL)
> > + return NOTIFY_OK; /* not for us */
>
> Again, a misleading comment.
Same here. rd->dn->parent may be something else.
> > +
> > + of_gpiochip_remove_hog(chip, rd->dn);
> > + of_node_clear_flag(rd->dn, OF_POPULATED);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return NOTIFY_OK;
> > +}
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-07 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-30 13:38 [PATCH/RFC 0/2] gpio: of: Add DT overlay support for GPIO hogs Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-12-30 13:38 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/2] gpio: of: Extract of_gpiochip_add_hog() Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-12-30 13:38 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/2] gpio: of: Add DT overlay support for GPIO hogs Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-06 23:34 ` Frank Rowand
2020-01-07 7:10 ` Frank Rowand
2020-01-07 7:25 ` Frank Rowand
2020-01-07 8:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-07 8:11 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-24 21:57 ` Frank Rowand
2020-01-24 22:02 ` Frank Rowand
2020-01-07 7:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
2020-01-03 9:51 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/2] " Bartosz Golaszewski
2020-01-07 7:46 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-07 9:03 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2020-01-07 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-06 23:34 ` Frank Rowand
2020-01-07 7:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
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=CAMuHMdVO7QvfdOEooJCVHDAwqzbZ_nYnZ6x97qVmFTyS+7kbKA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=chris.brandt@renesas.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com \
--cc=peter.ujfalusi@ti.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.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).