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 64E7DC433FE for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 13:07:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1354493AbhLBNKf (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:10:35 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46212 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241818AbhLBNKc (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:10:32 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC7D3C06174A for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:07:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id w1so116001948edc.6 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 05:07:09 -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=YFKDntCU6cVKnFCMDZ3hCPdkI89kjs63CB4CHrkHUO8=; b=QFXM5/O4UODmHXfJ4aOj2ikW1h+/A3A0o3Bl8auCbnr8C2Q5R3nHtboK5xiMgo7S97 qDsiuJVzwuEFSe6Vf2PkLH2AXPSTuFElwSIw5Jf/dQEGzTT5sosL7n2yKPiuAq3IgTbw jqfaBLi1UlLJR43V9iD7FzjtDd8zLDlp9xmTKHSH8CvdSPeov9HTmAnsCsvNwfWbquN0 at2Laeo7mLH4ruGIH+duy4b7l2k8v3PJn3XoJA0NXMNudlxjadZG7OkVyWD6PmoYQumv Ox1fw1b9eGFqOV8GgAmI9mes3h7HIq/KiUZREku6sRUt+kkQRxo7Argf/1CHh5IewdtG jeSQ== 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=YFKDntCU6cVKnFCMDZ3hCPdkI89kjs63CB4CHrkHUO8=; b=e3SvzAjLDKkv/Y4tkJM/tXpbQrHNHzuZ0SjX0mxJxYU/TnRSHbR1Tnc5YQ4d0X7+yi cbs2Wjs6lWrgQ7OBQjJUwTBZsaY6VNp6gdT34IxpnVDBv4oh/XC+6RattarMvexWvitM rbMOAiT3iL9sJpL3AbljggSNUpas+/Fxi6haU8nx5jYi/C+qHINK9S2PZ0OAwrAuyQyj I0L4gLL1DLIexeXN2GRr6miUVawnLvEed+NsHGc2gRSy6FxNTnexhwGo1UudJKidU+4F 27RVWXivuyRx6c4blYJsHfjxuGnJ8iMQL233k0+HBbz9qOacEXV+4BQHVKEkD0EYrvDq C9Hw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WBp14AaSjHG13greIdGZbCG0ms59kwB47Cw0DVRf51VdZtWSd aYpxVqtfqBBQXmRqyaWP5QbGw6wD4x86bTFRj6CqdA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvHW9IsyylcMnPNXn8QGiEFiA2SWzB/8bS5oihuPClJaSi3mG1D0Kfu3pzBDcQKnFH2GnOdPL9W9UkrbersBg= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cb45:: with SMTP id w5mr17716019edt.405.1638450428246; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 05:07:08 -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 14:06:57 +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-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:38 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:35:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 12:24:06PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Then we need to replace of_node by fwnode as a first step. I have looked > > briefly into the list of drivers that may have been cleaned up and it doesn't > > look too long. > > Let me kick this off by sending couple of patches. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > Are you fine with merging this in the meantime to get gpio-sim into mainline? Bart