From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES"
<linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Allow user to customise maximum number of GPIOs
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 14:00:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87f2ff4c-3426-201c-df86-2d06d3587a20@csgroup.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdb5ow4hD3td6agCuKWvuxptm5AV4rsCrcxNStNdXnBzrA@mail.gmail.com>
Le 25/08/2022 à 15:36, Linus Walleij a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:46 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:25 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>>> git grep 'base = -1' yields these suspects:
>>>
>>> arch/arm/common/sa1111.c: sachip->gc.base = -1;
>>> arch/arm/common/scoop.c: devptr->gpio.base = -1;
>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_gpt.c: gpt->gc.base = -1;
>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mcu_mpc8349emitx.c: gc->base = -1;
>>>
>>> That's all! We could just calculate these to 512-ngpios and
>>> hardcode that instead.
>>
>> How do the consumers find the numbers for these four?
>
> For SA1111 the chip gets named "sa1111" and some consumers actually
> use proper machine descriptions, maybe all?
>
> arch/arm/mach-sa1100/jornada720.c: GPIO_LOOKUP("sa1111",
> 0, "s0-power", GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH),
> arch/arm/mach-sa1100/jornada720.c: GPIO_LOOKUP("sa1111",
> 1, "s1-power", GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH),
> (...)
>
> For Scoop it is conditionally overridden in the code. I guess always
> overridden.
>
> For powerpc these seem to be using (old but working) device tree
> lookups, so should not be an issue.
>
> Sadly I'm not 100% sure that there are no random hard-coded
> GPIO numbers referring to whatever the framework gave them
> at the time the code was written :(
On my PPC board, the one before the last looks suspicious ....
[ 0.573261] gpio gpiochip0: registered GPIOs 496 to 511 on
/soc@ff000000/cpm@9c0/gpio-controller@950
[ 0.577460] gpio gpiochip1: registered GPIOs 464 to 495 on
/soc@ff000000/cpm@9c0/gpio-controller@ab8
[ 0.586011] gpio gpiochip2: registered GPIOs 448 to 463 on
/soc@ff000000/cpm@9c0/gpio-controller@960
[ 0.591057] gpio gpiochip3: registered GPIOs 432 to 447 on
/soc@ff000000/cpm@9c0/gpio-controller@970
[ 0.595979] gpio gpiochip4: registered GPIOs 400 to 431 on
/soc@ff000000/cpm@9c0/gpio-controller@ac8
[ 0.629292] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip5: registered GPIOs 384 to 399 on
/localbus@ff000100/cpld-cmpc@5,0000000/gpio-controller@2
[ 0.636556] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip6: registered GPIOs 368 to 383 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@00
[ 0.639503] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip7: registered GPIOs 352 to 367 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@02
[ 0.642434] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip8: registered GPIOs 336 to 351 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@04
[ 0.645257] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip9: registered GPIOs 320 to 335 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@10
[ 0.648230] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip10: registered GPIOs 304 to 319 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@20
[ 0.651070] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip11: registered GPIOs 288 to 303 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@22
[ 0.653986] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip12: registered GPIOs 272 to 287 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@24
[ 0.656807] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip13: registered GPIOs 256 to 271 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@26
[ 0.659761] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip14: registered GPIOs 240 to 255 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@28
[ 0.662622] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip15: registered GPIOs 224 to 239 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@2A
[ 0.665454] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip16: registered GPIOs 208 to 223 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@2C
[ 0.673552] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip17: registered GPIOs 192 to 207 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@30
[ 0.677281] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip18: registered GPIOs 176 to 191 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@32
[ 0.680235] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip19: registered GPIOs 160 to 175 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@40
[ 0.685876] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip20: registered GPIOs 144 to 159 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@42
[ 0.694431] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip21: registered GPIOs 128 to 143 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@44
[ 0.697257] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip22: registered GPIOs 112 to 127 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@50
[ 0.700220] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip23: registered GPIOs 96 to 111 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@52
[ 0.703183] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip24: registered GPIOs 80 to 95 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@54
[ 0.708226] gpio_stub_drv gpiochip25: registered GPIOs 64 to 79 on
/localbus@ff000100/fpga-m@4,0000000/gpio-controller@34
[ 0.756817] gpio gpiochip26: registered GPIOs 0 to 2 on generic
[ 4.530397] gpio gpiochip27: registered GPIOs 36 to 63 on max7301
>
> Another reason the base is assigned from above (usually
> from 512 and downward) is that the primary SoC GPIO usually
> want to be at base 0 and there is no guarantee that it will
> get probed first. So hard-coded GPIO bases go from 0 -> n
> and dynamically allocateed GPIO bases from n <- 512.
>
> Then we hope they don't meet and overlap in the middle...
>
>>> and in that case it is better to delete the use of this function
>>> altogether since it can not fail.
>>
>> S32_MAX might be a better upper bound. That allows to
>> just have no number assigned to a gpio chip. Any driver
>> code calling desc_to_gpio() could then get back -1
>> or a negative error code.
>>
>> Making the ones that are invalid today valid sounds like
>> a step backwards to me if the goal is to stop using
>> gpio numbers and most consumers no longer need them.
>
> OK I get it...
>
> Now: who wants to write this patch? :)
>
> Christophe? Will you take a stab at it?
>
Which patch should I write ?
Christophe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-25 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-09 10:40 [PATCH] gpio: Allow user to customise maximum number of GPIOs Christophe Leroy
2022-08-11 19:57 ` H. Peter Anvin
2022-08-12 21:58 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-08-12 23:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2022-08-17 17:21 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-08-17 17:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-08-18 6:00 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-08-18 8:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-08-18 9:33 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-18 9:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-08-18 11:13 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-18 11:33 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-08-18 12:25 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-18 12:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-08-18 13:11 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-08-25 13:36 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-25 14:00 ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2022-08-26 13:49 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-26 15:08 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-08-26 21:54 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-28 9:06 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-08-28 10:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-08-30 7:58 ` Davide Ciminaghi
2022-08-31 13:32 ` Linus Walleij
2022-08-31 14:12 ` Davide Ciminaghi
2022-08-31 21:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-08-31 21:48 ` Davide Ciminaghi
2022-08-30 8:33 ` Alessandro Rubini
2022-08-30 9:03 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-08-28 11:35 ` Linus Walleij
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=87f2ff4c-3426-201c-df86-2d06d3587a20@csgroup.eu \
--to=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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).