From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: cjb@laptop.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca,
rob.herring@calxeda.com, rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk,
ulf.hansson@stericsson.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
aletes.xgr@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, lrg@ti.com, perex@perex.cz,
tiwai@suse.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:40:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FDF5A10.5080706@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FDF4D14.50203@wwwdotorg.org>
On 06/18/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> Should be easy to fix (replacing the if (... == -ENODEV) to -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>>>
>>>> Will you provide patches as signalled, of should I? Which branch would
>>>> be the correct one to build on top?
>>>
>>> I'm happy either way. It'd probably be best to roll the change into your
>>> patch/series so you can manage all the dependencies in one series, but
>>> if you can't for some reason, I'm happy to provide a patch for this.
>>
>> I should be able ;-) - is broonie's sound.git, branch for-next the
>> correct one to patch against?
>
> Yes, that's the one. Thanks.
I'm posting this as a series of 2 for the sound changes only. Would be
easiest to merge separately via sound/for-next, and the gpiolib-of
change via gpio. However, this could break bisecting.
Since the respective precondition commits are only in the sound tree,
this would be the only one practical for merging a single combined
patch (combining those 3). Would this be OK for the GPIO maintainers?
It's practically only a one-line change in gpiolib-of.c that would come
in via sound.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
PS: Just for illustration purposes for the sound maintainers:
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
@@ -62,7 +62,10 @@ static int of_gpiochip_find_and_xlate(st
int of_get_named_gpio_flags(struct device_node *np, const char *propname,
int index, enum of_gpio_flags *flags)
{
- struct gg_data gg_data = { .flags = flags, .out_gpio = -ENODEV };
+ /* Return -EPROBE_DEFER to support probe() functions to be called
+ * later when the GPIO actually becomes available
+ */
+ struct gg_data gg_data = { .flags = flags, .out_gpio = -EPROBE_DEFER };
int ret;
/* .of_xlate might decide to not fill in the flags, so clear it. */
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: stigge@antcom.de (Roland Stigge)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:40:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FDF5A10.5080706@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FDF4D14.50203@wwwdotorg.org>
On 06/18/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> Should be easy to fix (replacing the if (... == -ENODEV) to -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>>>
>>>> Will you provide patches as signalled, of should I? Which branch would
>>>> be the correct one to build on top?
>>>
>>> I'm happy either way. It'd probably be best to roll the change into your
>>> patch/series so you can manage all the dependencies in one series, but
>>> if you can't for some reason, I'm happy to provide a patch for this.
>>
>> I should be able ;-) - is broonie's sound.git, branch for-next the
>> correct one to patch against?
>
> Yes, that's the one. Thanks.
I'm posting this as a series of 2 for the sound changes only. Would be
easiest to merge separately via sound/for-next, and the gpiolib-of
change via gpio. However, this could break bisecting.
Since the respective precondition commits are only in the sound tree,
this would be the only one practical for merging a single combined
patch (combining those 3). Would this be OK for the GPIO maintainers?
It's practically only a one-line change in gpiolib-of.c that would come
in via sound.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
PS: Just for illustration purposes for the sound maintainers:
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
@@ -62,7 +62,10 @@ static int of_gpiochip_find_and_xlate(st
int of_get_named_gpio_flags(struct device_node *np, const char *propname,
int index, enum of_gpio_flags *flags)
{
- struct gg_data gg_data = { .flags = flags, .out_gpio = -ENODEV };
+ /* Return -EPROBE_DEFER to support probe() functions to be called
+ * later when the GPIO actually becomes available
+ */
+ struct gg_data gg_data = { .flags = flags, .out_gpio = -EPROBE_DEFER };
int ret;
/* .of_xlate might decide to not fill in the flags, so clear it. */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-18 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-17 10:11 [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 10:11 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: mmci.c: Defer probe() in case of yet uninitialized GPIOs Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 10:11 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 16:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-17 16:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-17 18:01 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 18:01 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mmc: mmci.c: Remove wrong error handling of gpio 0 Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 10:11 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 18:06 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 18:06 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 18:04 ` [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 18:04 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-18 2:06 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 2:06 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 2:06 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 9:19 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 9:19 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 11:24 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 11:24 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 14:50 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 14:50 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 15:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 15:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 15:12 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 15:12 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 15:23 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 15:23 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 15:45 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 15:45 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 16:40 ` Roland Stigge [this message]
2012-06-18 16:40 ` Roland Stigge
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=4FDF5A10.5080706@antcom.de \
--to=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=aletes.xgr@gmail.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@ti.com \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=ulf.hansson@stericsson.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.