All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	soc@kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
	Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 14:22:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y43ij5rwNLOaztch@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y40zZ8fkE9d1zbbV@google.com>

On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 03:55:19PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, at 05:50, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > SoC team, the problematic patch has been in next for a while and it
> > > would be great to get the fix in to make sure the driver is not broken
> > > in 6.2. Thanks!
> > 
> > I have no problem taking thsi patch, but I get a merge conflict that
> > I'm not sure how to resolve:
> > 
> > 
> > @@@ -186,23 -182,27 +180,43 @@@ struct qe_pin *qe_pin_request(struct de
> >         if (WARN_ON(!gc)) {
> >                 err = -ENODEV;
> >                 goto err0;
> > ++<<<<<<< HEAD
> >  +      }
> >  +      qe_pin->gpiod = gpiod;
> >  +      qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> >  +      /*
> >  +       * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that the driver
> >  +       * can manipulate pin control settings through its custom API. The real
> >  +       * solution is to create a real pin control driver for this.
> >  +       */
> >  +      qe_pin->num = gpio_chip_hwgpio(gpiod);
> >  +
> >  +      if (!of_device_is_compatible(gc->of_node, "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> >  +              pr_debug("%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> >  +              gpiod_put(gpiod);
> > ++=======
> > +       } else if (!fwnode_device_is_compatible(gc->fwnode,
> > +                                               "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> > +               dev_dbg(dev, "%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> > ++>>>>>>> soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
> >                 err = -EINVAL;
> > -               goto err0;
> > +       } else {
> > +               qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > +               /*
> > +                * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that
> > +                * the driver can manipulate pin control settings through its
> > +                * custom API. The real solution is to create a real pin control
> > +                * driver for this.
> > +                */
> > +               qe_pin->num = desc_to_gpio(gpiod) - gc->base;
> >         }
> > 
> > Could you rebase the patch on top of the soc/driver branch in the
> > soc tree and send the updated version?
> 
> I see, it conflicts with:
> 
> 	c9eb6e546a23 soc: fsl: qe: Switch to use fwnode instead of of_node
> 
> that is in next but not in soc/driver tree/branch.

That's due to no reaction on the patch [1] from Freescale maintainers (*).
Either soc subsystem can pull this [2] or your patch can go via
pin control subsystem.

*) Note, there is not Arnd's name nor soc mailing list in the MAINTAINERS
   regarding those files, so I had had no idea about the correct route of
   the change.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221005152947.71696-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/Y3YY%2Fm0F%2FRh0jUc7@black.fi.intel.com/

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
	soc@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 14:22:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y43ij5rwNLOaztch@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y40zZ8fkE9d1zbbV@google.com>

On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 03:55:19PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, at 05:50, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > SoC team, the problematic patch has been in next for a while and it
> > > would be great to get the fix in to make sure the driver is not broken
> > > in 6.2. Thanks!
> > 
> > I have no problem taking thsi patch, but I get a merge conflict that
> > I'm not sure how to resolve:
> > 
> > 
> > @@@ -186,23 -182,27 +180,43 @@@ struct qe_pin *qe_pin_request(struct de
> >         if (WARN_ON(!gc)) {
> >                 err = -ENODEV;
> >                 goto err0;
> > ++<<<<<<< HEAD
> >  +      }
> >  +      qe_pin->gpiod = gpiod;
> >  +      qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> >  +      /*
> >  +       * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that the driver
> >  +       * can manipulate pin control settings through its custom API. The real
> >  +       * solution is to create a real pin control driver for this.
> >  +       */
> >  +      qe_pin->num = gpio_chip_hwgpio(gpiod);
> >  +
> >  +      if (!of_device_is_compatible(gc->of_node, "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> >  +              pr_debug("%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> >  +              gpiod_put(gpiod);
> > ++=======
> > +       } else if (!fwnode_device_is_compatible(gc->fwnode,
> > +                                               "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> > +               dev_dbg(dev, "%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> > ++>>>>>>> soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
> >                 err = -EINVAL;
> > -               goto err0;
> > +       } else {
> > +               qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > +               /*
> > +                * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that
> > +                * the driver can manipulate pin control settings through its
> > +                * custom API. The real solution is to create a real pin control
> > +                * driver for this.
> > +                */
> > +               qe_pin->num = desc_to_gpio(gpiod) - gc->base;
> >         }
> > 
> > Could you rebase the patch on top of the soc/driver branch in the
> > soc tree and send the updated version?
> 
> I see, it conflicts with:
> 
> 	c9eb6e546a23 soc: fsl: qe: Switch to use fwnode instead of of_node
> 
> that is in next but not in soc/driver tree/branch.

That's due to no reaction on the patch [1] from Freescale maintainers (*).
Either soc subsystem can pull this [2] or your patch can go via
pin control subsystem.

*) Note, there is not Arnd's name nor soc mailing list in the MAINTAINERS
   regarding those files, so I had had no idea about the correct route of
   the change.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221005152947.71696-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/Y3YY%2Fm0F%2FRh0jUc7@black.fi.intel.com/

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	soc@kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
	Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 14:22:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y43ij5rwNLOaztch@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y40zZ8fkE9d1zbbV@google.com>

On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 03:55:19PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, at 05:50, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > SoC team, the problematic patch has been in next for a while and it
> > > would be great to get the fix in to make sure the driver is not broken
> > > in 6.2. Thanks!
> > 
> > I have no problem taking thsi patch, but I get a merge conflict that
> > I'm not sure how to resolve:
> > 
> > 
> > @@@ -186,23 -182,27 +180,43 @@@ struct qe_pin *qe_pin_request(struct de
> >         if (WARN_ON(!gc)) {
> >                 err = -ENODEV;
> >                 goto err0;
> > ++<<<<<<< HEAD
> >  +      }
> >  +      qe_pin->gpiod = gpiod;
> >  +      qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> >  +      /*
> >  +       * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that the driver
> >  +       * can manipulate pin control settings through its custom API. The real
> >  +       * solution is to create a real pin control driver for this.
> >  +       */
> >  +      qe_pin->num = gpio_chip_hwgpio(gpiod);
> >  +
> >  +      if (!of_device_is_compatible(gc->of_node, "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> >  +              pr_debug("%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> >  +              gpiod_put(gpiod);
> > ++=======
> > +       } else if (!fwnode_device_is_compatible(gc->fwnode,
> > +                                               "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> > +               dev_dbg(dev, "%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> > ++>>>>>>> soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
> >                 err = -EINVAL;
> > -               goto err0;
> > +       } else {
> > +               qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > +               /*
> > +                * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that
> > +                * the driver can manipulate pin control settings through its
> > +                * custom API. The real solution is to create a real pin control
> > +                * driver for this.
> > +                */
> > +               qe_pin->num = desc_to_gpio(gpiod) - gc->base;
> >         }
> > 
> > Could you rebase the patch on top of the soc/driver branch in the
> > soc tree and send the updated version?
> 
> I see, it conflicts with:
> 
> 	c9eb6e546a23 soc: fsl: qe: Switch to use fwnode instead of of_node
> 
> that is in next but not in soc/driver tree/branch.

That's due to no reaction on the patch [1] from Freescale maintainers (*).
Either soc subsystem can pull this [2] or your patch can go via
pin control subsystem.

*) Note, there is not Arnd's name nor soc mailing list in the MAINTAINERS
   regarding those files, so I had had no idea about the correct route of
   the change.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221005152947.71696-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/Y3YY%2Fm0F%2FRh0jUc7@black.fi.intel.com/

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-12-05 12:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-04  4:50 [RESEND PATCH] soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively Dmitry Torokhov
2022-12-04  4:50 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-12-04  4:50 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-12-04 12:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-12-04 12:10   ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-12-04 12:10   ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-12-04 23:55   ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-12-04 23:55     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-12-04 23:55     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-12-05 12:22     ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2022-12-05 12:22       ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-12-05 12:22       ` Andy Shevchenko

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=Y43ij5rwNLOaztch@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=leoyang.li@nxp.com \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=qiang.zhao@nxp.com \
    --cc=soc@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 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.