linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: khilman@linaro.org (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:05:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sj2mzkcf.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5170E4EE.7090100@ti.com> (Santosh Shilimkar's message of "Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:02:14 +0530")

Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> writes:

> On Friday 19 April 2013 06:19 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> 
>> On 04/18/2013 07:34 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/18/2013 06:10 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 04/18/2013 04:34 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Why not just init context right here if bank->loses_context &&
>>>>> !bank->context_valid?
>>>
>>> I really like this idea a lot. It can really clean-up the code
>>> and really make it much more readable. Before we were playing 
>>> some tricks with when we init'ed the get_context_loss_count()
>>> function pointer. How about the below?
>>>
>>> Tony, care to re-test?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> From d7a940531d354e6be5e16ee50fa8344041df963a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:06:54 -0500
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised
>>>
>>> Commit a2797be (gpio/omap: force restore if context loss is not
>>> detectable) broke gpio support for OMAP when booting with device-tree
>>> because a restore of the gpio context being performed without ever
>>> initialising the gpio context. In other words, the context restored was
>>> bad.
>>>
>>> This problem could also occur in the non device-tree case, however, it
>>> is much less likely because when booting without device-tree we can
>>> detect context loss via a platform specific API and so context restore
>>> is performed less often.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless we should ensure that the gpio context is initialised
>>> on the first pm-runtime resume for gpio banks that could lose their
>>> state regardless of whether we are booting with device-tree or not.
>>>
>>> The context loss count was being initialised on the first pm-runtime
>>> suspend following a resume, by populating the get_count_loss_count()
>>> function pointer after the first pm-runtime resume. To make the code
>>> more readable and logical, initialise the context loss count on the
>>> first pm-runtime resume if the context is not yet valid.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c |   45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>> index 0557529..db3c732 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>> @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ struct gpio_bank {
>>>  	bool is_mpuio;
>>>  	bool dbck_flag;
>>>  	bool loses_context;
>>> +	bool context_valid;
>>>  	int stride;
>>>  	u32 width;
>>>  	int context_loss_count;
>>> @@ -1129,6 +1130,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  			bank->loses_context = true;
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		bank->loses_context = pdata->loses_context;
>>> +		bank->get_context_loss_count = pdata->get_context_loss_count;
>> 
>> Still need to check loses_context for populating
>> get_context_loss_count here. Updated patch below.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> From d02ef7b7dfcf8e13bf019aedfdecb38ca3c6749f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:06:54 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised
>> 
>> Commit a2797be (gpio/omap: force restore if context loss is not
>> detectable) broke gpio support for OMAP when booting with device-tree
>> because a restore of the gpio context being performed without ever
>> initialising the gpio context. In other words, the context restored was
>> bad.
>> 
>> This problem could also occur in the non device-tree case, however, it
>> is much less likely because when booting without device-tree we can
>> detect context loss via a platform specific API and so context restore
>> is performed less often.
>> 
>> Nevertheless we should ensure that the gpio context is initialised
>> on the first pm-runtime resume for gpio banks that could lose their
>> state regardless of whether we are booting with device-tree or not.
>> 
>> The context loss count was being initialised on the first pm-runtime
>> suspend following a resume, by populating the get_count_loss_count()
>> function pointer after the first pm-runtime resume. To make the code
>> more readable and logical, initialise the context loss count on the
>> first pm-runtime resume if the context is not yet valid.
>> 
>> Reported-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>> ---
> This version looks better than the first one for sure. I am still not
> happy with per bank "context_valid" flag whose job just ends after
> the probe. 

Assuming this driver could become a module someday (not terribly likely,
I know), but context_valid would have meaning for each module reload.

> But then I do agree with you about the global flag might
> be fragile and less maintainable.
>
> So, FWIW,
> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>

Yes, this version is more readable.  Thanks for the update.

Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-19 14:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-17 20:31 [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised Jon Hunter
2013-04-18  8:22 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-04-18 16:46   ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-18 21:34 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-04-18 23:10   ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-19  0:34     ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-19  0:49       ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-19  6:32         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-04-19 14:05           ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2013-04-19 14:40             ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-04-19 15:36               ` Tony Lindgren
2013-04-26  7:54         ` 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=87sj2mzkcf.fsf@linaro.org \
    --to=khilman@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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).