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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B06C282CE for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24D6222CA for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:18:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="Wq6ue7r0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E24D6222CA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=st.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description :Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=hZwQO6BVgtS1b702gg3nZhFtvKGgqukf+6XUOGxzXHA=; b=Wq6ue7r0AZVGmC K4SDD5c+nadTDrcA+Ebbvc2h58dj6bYzdwON7eEaSCXYdge2RuKdrBCN1xU8VB1daPUwlL1+kS2Bf L40xI24F82An0EciIVANLevV6uOvzsHORDKyhefCBkbGHzmTrvlTpXLW/RV3LY4CCnmJM/3m1EE7A 24r2mgEPEp0VdOP82iCbLH0nzteAUh6HB5rykm6kcrGdxH8f/JPdE4uClwJy48rmcQxzHjdCRE5gH bkZLK4I+9okWmNi7GM2F5cn61wPrXim7e3MZrUDMwxYEXu4cZMGSU1CiVXegrg36EjloYSDjxGQP7 vRFA69n5ZEk1Slr1o9PA==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gtwIS-0002bx-5s; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:18:00 +0000 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93] helo=mx07-00178001.pphosted.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gtwIN-0002bS-P0 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:17:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0046660.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx08-00178001.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1DFF6nQ024692; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:17:49 +0100 Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx08-00178001.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qhv0m7wea-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:17:49 +0100 Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (zeta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id ACD1231; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:17:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (sfhdag5node3.st.com [10.75.127.15]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 69DF3584D; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:17:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.48.0.167] (10.75.127.51) by SFHDAG5NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:17:47 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pwm: core: add consumer device link To: Thierry Reding References: <1550055012-23348-1-git-send-email-fabrice.gasnier@st.com> <1550055012-23348-4-git-send-email-fabrice.gasnier@st.com> <20190213125353.GI647@ulmo> From: Fabrice Gasnier Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:17:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190213125353.GI647@ulmo> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.51] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG5NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.14) To SFHDAG5NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.15) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-13_09:, , signatures=0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20190213_071756_163892_A2F21D51 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 31.92 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alexandre.torgue@st.com, tduszyns@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 2/13/19 1:53 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:50:12AM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: >> Add a device link between the PWM consumer and the PWM provider. This >> enforces the PWM user to get suspended before the PWM provider. It >> allows proper synchronization of suspend/resume sequences: the PWM user >> is responsible for properly stopping PWM, before the provider gets >> suspended: see [1]. Add the device link in: >> - of_pwm_get() >> - pwm_get() >> - devm_ variants >> as it requires a reference to the device for the PWM consumer. >> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/5/770 >> >> Suggested-by: Thierry Reding >> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier >> --- >> Changes in v3: >> - add struct device to of_get_pwm() arguments to handle device link from >> there. >> --- >> drivers/pwm/core.c | 14 +++++++++++--- >> include/linux/pwm.h | 6 ++++-- >> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c >> index 1581f6a..8cb5d4bc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c >> @@ -638,6 +638,7 @@ static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np) >> >> /** >> * of_pwm_get() - request a PWM via the PWM framework >> + * @dev: device for PWM consumer >> * @np: device node to get the PWM from >> * @con_id: consumer name >> * >> @@ -655,7 +656,8 @@ static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np) >> * Returns: A pointer to the requested PWM device or an ERR_PTR()-encoded >> * error code on failure. >> */ >> -struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id) >> +struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np, >> + const char *con_id) >> { >> struct pwm_device *pwm = NULL; >> struct of_phandle_args args; >> @@ -689,6 +691,9 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id) >> if (IS_ERR(pwm)) >> goto put; >> >> + if (!device_link_add(dev, pwm->chip->dev, DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER)) >> + pr_debug("%s(): device link not added\n", __func__); > > I think it's better to turn this into dev_dbg(dev, ...) and maybe > mention which supplier it failed to link to, something like: > > if (!device_link_add(...)) > dev_dbg(dev, "failed to create device link to %s\n", > pwm->chip->dev); Hi Thierry, Thanks for reviewing. I can update this: I used pr_debug() as there are pr_err() calls elsewhere in this routine. BTW, do you wish an additional patch to turn pr_err() into dev_err() in of_pwm_get()? > > Also, I wonder if this should perhaps be dev_err(). Under what > circumstances does this fail? Well, here is a comment from "device_link_add()" routine: " /* * If the supplier has not been fully registered yet or there is a * reverse dependency between the consumer and the supplier already in * the graph, return NULL. */ " => Here the PWM supplier is already registered. (It seems a probe defer can be returned few lines above otherwise.) Other possibilities: kzalloc() failed, no consumer or supplier has been provided (or invalid flags, but this is hardcoded here.). So, I see two case here: 1 - The caller provided a 'dev' for PWM consumer... So, NULL link is an error when consumer & supplier has been passed correctly. => I can add a check on 'dev' for PWM consumer and report an error here: return -EINVAL 2 - The caller can't provide a 'dev' for PWM consumer as you mention bellow: "to allow code to get at the PWM if they didn't have..." => We should probably add a dev_warn() here, with no error ? Please see here after. > >> + >> /* >> * If a consumer name was not given, try to look it up from the >> * "pwm-names" property if it exists. Otherwise use the name of >> @@ -771,7 +776,7 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id) >> >> /* look up via DT first */ >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev && dev->of_node) >> - return of_pwm_get(dev->of_node, con_id); >> + return of_pwm_get(dev, dev->of_node, con_id); >> >> /* >> * We look up the provider in the static table typically provided by >> @@ -851,6 +856,9 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id) >> pwm->args.period = chosen->period; >> pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity; >> >> + if (!device_link_add(dev, pwm->chip->dev, DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER)) >> + pr_debug("%s(): device link not added\n", __func__); > > Same here. Also: not sure if we really need to include __func__ in the > message. > >> + >> return pwm; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_get); >> @@ -939,7 +947,7 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np, >> if (!ptr) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> >> - pwm = of_pwm_get(np, con_id); >> + pwm = of_pwm_get(dev, np, con_id); >> if (!IS_ERR(pwm)) { >> *ptr = pwm; >> devres_add(dev, ptr); >> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h >> index d5199b5..895e074 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h >> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h >> @@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc, >> const struct of_phandle_args *args); >> >> struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id); >> -struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id); >> +struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np, >> + const char *con_id); > > I'm slightly concerned about this. I think one of the reasons why this > was introduced was to allow code to get at the PWM if they didn't have > a struct device * available. However, it doesn't seem like there are any > users of that function, so this seems fine. The git blame pointed out commit 8eb961279960: " pwm: core: Rename of_pwm_request() to of_pwm_get() and export it Allow client driver to use of_pwm_get() to get the PWM they need. This is needed for drivers which handle more than one PWM separately, like leds-pwm driver, which have: " ... For instance, I tested the leds-pwm driver. It uses the devm_* variant now (as others), there is a struct device * available. So yes, it seems fine. The only thing maybe out of tree code? This is where I have a doubt on having a mandatory struct device * to enforce consumer link creation... or make it optional (e.g. behave as a 'legacy' API) and warn the caller. Please let me know your feeling. Best regards, Fabrice > > Thierry > >> void pwm_put(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> >> struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id); >> @@ -494,7 +495,8 @@ static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> } >> >> -static inline struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, >> +static inline struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_node *np, >> const char *con_id) >> { >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel