* [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver @ 2013-02-13 18:02 Doug Anderson [not found] ` <1360778532-7480-1-git-send-email-dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-13 21:02 ` Stephen Warren 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-13 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Guenter Roeck, Stephen Warren, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ, Mark Brown, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar, Prashanth G The i2c-arbitrator driver implements the arbitration scheme that the Embedded Controller (EC) on the ARM Chromebook expects to use for bus multimastering. This i2c-arbitrator driver could also be used in other places where standard i2c bus arbitration can't be used and two extra GPIOs are available for arbitration. This driver is based on code that Simon Glass added to the i2c-s3c2410 driver in the Chrome OS kernel 3.4 tree. The current incarnation as a mux driver is as suggested by Grant Likely. See <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1877311/> for some history. Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> --- Changes in v1: None .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt | 76 +++++++ drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig | 11 + drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile | 1 + drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c | 242 +++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 330 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bb9cca7 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +GPIO-based Arbitration +====================== +This uses GPIO lines between the AP (Application Processor) and an attached +EC (Embedded Controller) which both want to talk on the same I2C bus as master. + +The AP and EC each have a 'bus claim' line, which is an output that the +other can see. These are both active low, with pull-ups enabled. + +- AP_CLAIM: output from AP, signalling to the EC that the AP wants the bus +- EC_CLAIM: output from EC, signalling to the AP that the EC wants the bus + + +This mechanism is used instead of standard i2c multimaster to avoid some of the +subtle driver and silicon bugs that are often present with i2c multimaster. + + +Algorithm: + +The basic algorithm is to assert your line when you want the bus, then make +sure that the other side doesn't want it also. A detailed explanation is best +done with an example. + +Let's say the AP wants to claim the bus. It: +1. Asserts AP_CLAIM. +2. Waits a little bit for the other side to notice (slew time, say 10 + microseconds). +3. Checks EC_CLAIM. If this is not asserted then the AP has the bus and we are + done. +4. Otherwise, wait for a few milliseconds and see if EC_CLAIM is released. +5. If not, back off, release the claim and wait for a few more milliseconds. +6. Go back to 1 (until retry time has expired). + + +Required properties: +- compatible: i2c-arbitrator +- bus-arbitration-gpios: Two GPIOs to use with the GPIO-based bus + arbitration protocol. The first should be an output, and is used to + claim the I2C bus for us (AP_CLAIM). The second should be an input and + signals that the other side wants to claim the bus (EC_CLAIM). +- bus-arbitration-slew-delay-us: microseconds to wait for a GPIO to go high. +- bus-arbitration-wait-retry-us: we'll attempt another claim after this many + microseconds. +- bus-arbitration-wait-free-us: we'll give up after this many microseconds. +- Standard I2C mux properties. See mux.txt in this directory. +- Single I2C child bus node at reg 0. See mux.txt in this directory. + + +Example: + i2c@12CA0000 { + compatible = "acme,some-i2c-device"; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + }; + + i2c-arbitrator { + compatible = "i2c-arbitrator"; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + i2c-parent = <&{/i2c@12CA0000}>; + + bus-arbitration-gpios = <&gpf0 3 1 0 0>, <&gpe0 4 0 3 0>; + bus-arbitration-slew-delay-us = <10>; + bus-arbitration-wait-retry-us = <3000>; + bus-arbitration-wait-free-us = <50000>; + + i2c@0 { + reg = <0>; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + i2c@52 { + // Normal i2c device + }; + }; + }; diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig index 0be5b83..714bf16 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig @@ -5,6 +5,17 @@ menu "Multiplexer I2C Chip support" depends on I2C_MUX +config I2C_ARBITRATOR + tristate "GPIO-based I2C arbitrator" + depends on GENERIC_GPIO && OF + help + If you say yes to this option, support will be included for an + i2c multimaster arbitration scheme using GPIOs (as opposed to + using standard i2c multimaster mode). + + This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module + will be called i2c-arbitrator. + config I2C_MUX_GPIO tristate "GPIO-based I2C multiplexer" depends on GENERIC_GPIO diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile b/drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile index 76da869..adfe147 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ # # Makefile for multiplexer I2C chip drivers. +obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_ARBITRATOR) += i2c-arbitrator.o obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_MUX_GPIO) += i2c-mux-gpio.o obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_MUX_PCA9541) += i2c-mux-pca9541.o obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_MUX_PCA954x) += i2c-mux-pca954x.o diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c3bbdf7 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +/* + * I2C arbitrator using GPIO API + * + * Copyright (C) 2012 Google, Inc + * + * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public + * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and + * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms. + * + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + * GNU General Public License for more details. + * + */ + +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/gpio.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/i2c.h> +#include <linux/i2c-mux.h> +#include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/of_i2c.h> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + + +enum { + I2C_ARB_GPIO_AP, /* AP claims i2c bus */ + I2C_ARB_GPIO_EC, /* EC claims i2c bus */ + + I2C_ARB_GPIO_COUNT, +}; + +/** + * struct i2c_arbitrator_data - Driver data for i2c arbitrator + * + * @parent: Parent adapter + * @child: Child bus + * @ap_gpio: GPIO we'll use to claim. + * @ec_gpio: GPIO that the other side will use to claim. + * @slew_delay_us: microseconds to wait for a GPIO to go high. + * @wait_retry_us: we'll attempt another claim after this many microseconds. + * @wait_free_us: we'll give up after this many microseconds. + */ + +struct i2c_arbitrator_data { + struct i2c_adapter *parent; + struct i2c_adapter *child; + + int ap_gpio; + int ec_gpio; + unsigned int slew_delay_us; + unsigned int wait_retry_us; + unsigned int wait_free_us; +}; + + +/** + * i2c_arbitrator_select - claim the i2c bus + * + * Use the GPIO-based signalling protocol; return -EBUSY if we fail. + */ +static int i2c_arbitrator_select(struct i2c_adapter *adap, void *data, u32 chan) +{ + const struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb = data; + unsigned long stop_retry, stop_time; + + /* Start a round of trying to claim the bus */ + stop_time = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(arb->wait_free_us) + 1; + do { + /* Indicate that we want to claim the bus */ + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 0); + udelay(arb->slew_delay_us); + + /* Wait for the EC to release it */ + stop_retry = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(arb->wait_retry_us) + 1; + while (time_before(jiffies, stop_retry)) { + if (gpio_get_value(arb->ec_gpio)) { + /* We got it, so return */ + return 0; + } + + usleep_range(50, 200); + } + + /* It didn't release, so give up, wait, and try again */ + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 1); + + usleep_range(arb->wait_retry_us, arb->wait_retry_us * 2); + } while (time_before(jiffies, stop_time)); + + /* Give up, release our claim */ + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 1); + udelay(arb->slew_delay_us); + dev_err(&adap->dev, "Could not claim bus, timeout\n"); + return -EBUSY; +} + +/** + * i2c_arbitrator_deselect - release the i2c bus + * + * Release the i2c bus using the GPIO-based signalling protocol. + */ +static int i2c_arbitrator_deselect(struct i2c_adapter *adap, void *data, + u32 chan) +{ + const struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb = data; + + /* Release the bus and wait for the EC to notice */ + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 1); + udelay(arb->slew_delay_us); + + return 0; +} + +static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node; + struct device_node *parent_np; + struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb; + int ret; + + /* We only support probing from device tree; no platform_data */ + if (WARN_ON(!np)) + return -ENODEV; + if (WARN_ON(pdev->dev.platform_data)) + return -EINVAL; + + arb = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*arb), GFP_KERNEL); + if (WARN_ON(!arb)) + return -ENOMEM; + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, arb); + + /* Find our parent */ + parent_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "i2c-parent", 0); + if (WARN_ON(!parent_np)) + return -EINVAL; + arb->parent = of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np); + if (WARN_ON(!arb->parent)) + return -EINVAL; + + /* Request GPIOs */ + ret = of_get_named_gpio(np, "bus-arbitration-gpios", I2C_ARB_GPIO_AP); + if (gpio_is_valid(ret)) { + arb->ap_gpio = ret; + ret = gpio_request_one(arb->ap_gpio, GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH, + "bus-arbitration-ap"); + } + if (WARN_ON(ret)) + goto ap_request_failed; + + ret = of_get_named_gpio(np, "bus-arbitration-gpios", I2C_ARB_GPIO_EC); + if (gpio_is_valid(ret)) { + arb->ec_gpio = ret; + ret = gpio_request_one(arb->ec_gpio, GPIOF_IN, + "bus-arbitration-ec"); + } + if (WARN_ON(ret)) + goto ec_request_failed; + + /* Arbitration parameters */ + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-arbitration-slew-delay-us", + &arb->slew_delay_us)) + arb->slew_delay_us = 10; + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-arbitration-wait-retry-us", + &arb->wait_retry_us)) + arb->wait_retry_us = 3000; + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-arbitration-wait-free-us", + &arb->wait_free_us)) + arb->wait_free_us = 50000; + + /* Actually add the mux adapter */ + arb->child = i2c_add_mux_adapter(arb->parent, &pdev->dev, arb, 0, 0, 0, + i2c_arbitrator_select, + i2c_arbitrator_deselect); + if (WARN_ON(!arb->child)) { + ret = -ENODEV; + goto add_adapter_failed; + } + + return 0; + +add_adapter_failed: + gpio_free(arb->ec_gpio); +ec_request_failed: + gpio_free(arb->ap_gpio); +ap_request_failed: + i2c_put_adapter(arb->parent); + + return ret; +} + +static int i2c_arbitrator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); + + i2c_del_mux_adapter(arb->child); + + gpio_free(arb->ec_gpio); + gpio_free(arb->ap_gpio); + + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); + i2c_put_adapter(arb->parent); + + return 0; +} + +static const struct of_device_id i2c_arbitrator_of_match[] = { + { .compatible = "i2c-arbitrator", }, + {}, +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, i2c_arbitrator_of_match); + +static struct platform_driver i2c_arbitrator_driver = { + .probe = i2c_arbitrator_probe, + .remove = i2c_arbitrator_remove, + .driver = { + .owner = THIS_MODULE, + .name = "i2c-arbitrator", + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(i2c_arbitrator_of_match), + }, +}; + +static int __init i2c_arbitrator_init(void) +{ + return platform_driver_register(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); +} +subsys_initcall(i2c_arbitrator_init); + +static void __exit i2c_arbitrator_exit(void) +{ + platform_driver_unregister(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); +} +module_exit(i2c_arbitrator_exit); + +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("GPIO-based I2C arbitrator driver"); +MODULE_AUTHOR("Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>"); +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:i2c-arbitrator"); -- 1.8.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1360778532-7480-1-git-send-email-dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <1360778532-7480-1-git-send-email-dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-13 18:45 ` Olof Johansson 2013-02-13 18:49 ` Olof Johansson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2013-02-13 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: Wolfram Sang, Simon Glass, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, Grant Likely, Yuvaraj Kumar, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Mark Brown, Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ, sreekumar.c-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ, Prashanth G, Daniel Kurtz, Grant Grundler, Rob Herring, Rob Landley, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Jean Delvare, Peter Korsgaard, Stephen Warren, Guenter Roeck, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, linux-doc Hi, The driver pieces have been reviewed a bit already, but I have a question on the bindings below. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:02:09AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > The i2c-arbitrator driver implements the arbitration scheme that the > Embedded Controller (EC) on the ARM Chromebook expects to use for bus > multimastering. This i2c-arbitrator driver could also be used in > other places where standard i2c bus arbitration can't be used and two > extra GPIOs are available for arbitration. > > This driver is based on code that Simon Glass added to the i2c-s3c2410 > driver in the Chrome OS kernel 3.4 tree. The current incarnation as a > mux driver is as suggested by Grant Likely. See > <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1877311/> for some history. > > Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> > Signed-off-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> > --- > Changes in v1: None > > .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt | 76 +++++++ > drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig | 11 + > drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c | 242 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 330 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt > create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..bb9cca7 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ > +GPIO-based Arbitration > +====================== > +This uses GPIO lines between the AP (Application Processor) and an attached > +EC (Embedded Controller) which both want to talk on the same I2C bus as master. > + > +The AP and EC each have a 'bus claim' line, which is an output that the > +other can see. These are both active low, with pull-ups enabled. > + > +- AP_CLAIM: output from AP, signalling to the EC that the AP wants the bus > +- EC_CLAIM: output from EC, signalling to the AP that the EC wants the bus > + > + > +This mechanism is used instead of standard i2c multimaster to avoid some of the > +subtle driver and silicon bugs that are often present with i2c multimaster. > + > + > +Algorithm: > + > +The basic algorithm is to assert your line when you want the bus, then make > +sure that the other side doesn't want it also. A detailed explanation is best > +done with an example. > + > +Let's say the AP wants to claim the bus. It: > +1. Asserts AP_CLAIM. > +2. Waits a little bit for the other side to notice (slew time, say 10 > + microseconds). > +3. Checks EC_CLAIM. If this is not asserted then the AP has the bus and we are > + done. > +4. Otherwise, wait for a few milliseconds and see if EC_CLAIM is released. > +5. If not, back off, release the claim and wait for a few more milliseconds. > +6. Go back to 1 (until retry time has expired). > + > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible: i2c-arbitrator > +- bus-arbitration-gpios: Two GPIOs to use with the GPIO-based bus > + arbitration protocol. The first should be an output, and is used to > + claim the I2C bus for us (AP_CLAIM). The second should be an input and > + signals that the other side wants to claim the bus (EC_CLAIM). > +- bus-arbitration-slew-delay-us: microseconds to wait for a GPIO to go high. > +- bus-arbitration-wait-retry-us: we'll attempt another claim after this many > + microseconds. > +- bus-arbitration-wait-free-us: we'll give up after this many microseconds. > +- Standard I2C mux properties. See mux.txt in this directory. > +- Single I2C child bus node at reg 0. See mux.txt in this directory. > + > + > +Example: > + i2c@12CA0000 { > + compatible = "acme,some-i2c-device"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + }; > + > + i2c-arbitrator { > + compatible = "i2c-arbitrator"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + > + i2c-parent = <&{/i2c@12CA0000}>; Why use this custom i2c-parent property? The arbitrator should just be under the i2c controller in the device tree, and thus parent would be derived from the topology there. -Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver 2013-02-13 18:45 ` Olof Johansson @ 2013-02-13 18:49 ` Olof Johansson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2013-02-13 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: Wolfram Sang, Simon Glass, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, Grant Likely, Yuvaraj Kumar, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig, Mark Brown, Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, sreekumar.c, Prashanth G, Daniel Kurtz, Grant Grundler, Rob Herring, Rob Landley, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Jean Delvare, Peter Korsgaard, Stephen Warren, Guenter Roeck, devicetree-discuss, linux-doc On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> + i2c-parent = <&{/i2c@12CA0000}>; > > Why use this custom i2c-parent property? The arbitrator should just be > under the i2c controller in the device tree, and thus parent would be > derived from the topology there. Ah. Reading up on the discussions for the other mux bindings, there's the issue of the arbitrator not being addressable/accessible via i2c. Sigh, awkward and annoying, since it breaks the topography for the hardware apart due to the arbitrator. But I guess there's no good alternative. :( -Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver 2013-02-13 18:02 [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver Doug Anderson [not found] ` <1360778532-7480-1-git-send-email-dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-13 21:02 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511BFF77.2090202-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Stephen Warren @ 2013-02-13 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: Wolfram Sang, Simon Glass, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, Grant Likely, Yuvaraj Kumar, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig, Mark Brown, Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, sreekumar.c, Prashanth G, Olof Johansson, Daniel Kurtz, Grant Grundler, Rob Herring, Rob Landley, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Jean Delvare, Peter Korsgaard, Stephen Warren, Guenter Roeck, devicetree-dis On 02/13/2013 11:02 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > The i2c-arbitrator driver implements the arbitration scheme that the > Embedded Controller (EC) on the ARM Chromebook expects to use for bus > multimastering. This i2c-arbitrator driver could also be used in > other places where standard i2c bus arbitration can't be used and two > extra GPIOs are available for arbitration. > > This driver is based on code that Simon Glass added to the i2c-s3c2410 > driver in the Chrome OS kernel 3.4 tree. The current incarnation as a > mux driver is as suggested by Grant Likely. See > <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1877311/> for some history. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt > +This mechanism is used instead of standard i2c multimaster to avoid some of the > +subtle driver and silicon bugs that are often present with i2c multimaster. Being really pick here, but I2C should be capitalized in free-form text. There are a few other places where the comment applies. > +Required properties: > +- compatible: i2c-arbitrator That seems pretty generic. What if there are other arbitration schemes? > +- bus-arbitration-gpios: Two GPIOs to use with the GPIO-based bus > + arbitration protocol. The first should be an output, and is used to > + claim the I2C bus for us (AP_CLAIM). The second should be an input and > + signals that the other side wants to claim the bus (EC_CLAIM). Is it worth using two separate properties here, so they each get a unique name. That way, nobody has the remember which order the two GPIOs come in. > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c > +enum { > + I2C_ARB_GPIO_AP, /* AP claims i2c bus */ > + I2C_ARB_GPIO_EC, /* EC claims i2c bus */ > + > + I2C_ARB_GPIO_COUNT, > +}; Oh, I see from later code that those are indices into the bus-arbitration-gpios DT property. I thought they were states in some state machine at first. A comment might help here, if you continue to use one property. > +static int i2c_arbitrator_select(struct i2c_adapter *adap, void *data, u32 chan) > +{ > + const struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb = data; > + unsigned long stop_retry, stop_time; > + > + /* Start a round of trying to claim the bus */ > + stop_time = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(arb->wait_free_us) + 1; > + do { > + /* Indicate that we want to claim the bus */ > + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 0); The GPIO signals appear to be active low in the code. Instead, I think it'd make more sense to extract the polarity of the GPIO from DT, using of_get_named_gpio_flags(). > +static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > + /* Request GPIOs */ > + ret = of_get_named_gpio(np, "bus-arbitration-gpios", I2C_ARB_GPIO_AP); > + if (gpio_is_valid(ret)) { > + arb->ap_gpio = ret; > + ret = gpio_request_one(arb->ap_gpio, GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH, > + "bus-arbitration-ap"); > + } > + if (WARN_ON(ret)) > + goto ap_request_failed; you could use devm_gpio_request_one() and save some cleanup logic. > + /* Arbitration parameters */ > + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-arbitration-slew-delay-us", > + &arb->slew_delay_us)) > + arb->slew_delay_us = 10; The DT binding document says that property is required. Either the code should error out here, or the document updated to indicate that the properties are optional, and specify what the defaults are. > +static int i2c_arbitrator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); You shouldn't have to do that; nothing should care what the pdata value is while the device isn't probed anyway. > +static int __init i2c_arbitrator_init(void) > +{ > + return platform_driver_register(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); > +} > +subsys_initcall(i2c_arbitrator_init); > + > +static void __exit i2c_arbitrator_exit(void) > +{ > + platform_driver_unregister(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); > +} > +module_exit(i2c_arbitrator_exit); You should be able to replace all that with: module_platform_driver(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); The header says GPL v2 only, so "GPL v2". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <511BFF77.2090202-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <511BFF77.2090202-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 0:34 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=XUEcUx3NGCm+KijRGujECVTSJ9X5fY=arq-4U_RUdxCQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-14 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Warren Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Guenter Roeck, Stephen Warren, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, Wolfram Sang, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar <yuv> Stephen, Thank you for the review. Comments below (including changes I have done locally). I probably won't have time to test / repost until tomorrow. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: > On 02/13/2013 11:02 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> The i2c-arbitrator driver implements the arbitration scheme that the >> Embedded Controller (EC) on the ARM Chromebook expects to use for bus >> multimastering. This i2c-arbitrator driver could also be used in >> other places where standard i2c bus arbitration can't be used and two >> extra GPIOs are available for arbitration. >> >> This driver is based on code that Simon Glass added to the i2c-s3c2410 >> driver in the Chrome OS kernel 3.4 tree. The current incarnation as a >> mux driver is as suggested by Grant Likely. See >> <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1877311/> for some history. > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt > >> +This mechanism is used instead of standard i2c multimaster to avoid some of the >> +subtle driver and silicon bugs that are often present with i2c multimaster. > > Being really pick here, but I2C should be capitalized in free-form text. > There are a few other places where the comment applies. Done. >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: i2c-arbitrator > > That seems pretty generic. What if there are other arbitration schemes? OK, going to go with i2c-arbitrator-cros-ec. Hopefully that sounds OK. >> +- bus-arbitration-gpios: Two GPIOs to use with the GPIO-based bus >> + arbitration protocol. The first should be an output, and is used to >> + claim the I2C bus for us (AP_CLAIM). The second should be an input and >> + signals that the other side wants to claim the bus (EC_CLAIM). > > Is it worth using two separate properties here, so they each get a > unique name. That way, nobody has the remember which order the two GPIOs > come in. Yes, I think it's better too. Done. >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-arbitrator.c > >> +enum { >> + I2C_ARB_GPIO_AP, /* AP claims i2c bus */ >> + I2C_ARB_GPIO_EC, /* EC claims i2c bus */ >> + >> + I2C_ARB_GPIO_COUNT, >> +}; > > Oh, I see from later code that those are indices into the > bus-arbitration-gpios DT property. I thought they were states in some > state machine at first. A comment might help here, if you continue to > use one property. Removed this bit of code. >> +static int i2c_arbitrator_select(struct i2c_adapter *adap, void *data, u32 chan) >> +{ >> + const struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb = data; >> + unsigned long stop_retry, stop_time; >> + >> + /* Start a round of trying to claim the bus */ >> + stop_time = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(arb->wait_free_us) + 1; >> + do { >> + /* Indicate that we want to claim the bus */ >> + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 0); > > The GPIO signals appear to be active low in the code. Instead, I think > it'd make more sense to extract the polarity of the GPIO from DT, using > of_get_named_gpio_flags(). A little torn here. It adds a bunch of complexity to the code to handle this case and there are no known or anticipated users. I only wish that the GPIO polarity could be more hidden from drivers (add functions like gpio_assert, gpio_deassert, etc)... In any case, I've done it. I used the "!!" trick a lot to convert "zero/non-zero" to "0/1" to at least reduce the lines of code a little. I think this is common enough that it helps readability rather than hurting it. >> +static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> + /* Request GPIOs */ >> + ret = of_get_named_gpio(np, "bus-arbitration-gpios", I2C_ARB_GPIO_AP); >> + if (gpio_is_valid(ret)) { >> + arb->ap_gpio = ret; >> + ret = gpio_request_one(arb->ap_gpio, GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH, >> + "bus-arbitration-ap"); >> + } >> + if (WARN_ON(ret)) >> + goto ap_request_failed; > > you could use devm_gpio_request_one() and save some cleanup logic. Whoops, didn't realize that was there. Done. >> + /* Arbitration parameters */ >> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-arbitration-slew-delay-us", >> + &arb->slew_delay_us)) >> + arb->slew_delay_us = 10; > > The DT binding document says that property is required. Either the code > should error out here, or the document updated to indicate that the > properties are optional, and specify what the defaults are. Done. Now optional. >> +static int i2c_arbitrator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); > > You shouldn't have to do that; nothing should care what the pdata value > is while the device isn't probed anyway. Done. Code was stolen from i2c_mux_gpio_remove(), so perhaps we should remove it there too. I'll send up a quick cleanup patch tomorrow. >> +static int __init i2c_arbitrator_init(void) >> +{ >> + return platform_driver_register(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); >> +} >> +subsys_initcall(i2c_arbitrator_init); >> + >> +static void __exit i2c_arbitrator_exit(void) >> +{ >> + platform_driver_unregister(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); >> +} >> +module_exit(i2c_arbitrator_exit); > > You should be able to replace all that with: > > module_platform_driver(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); Sigh. Yeah, I had that. ...but it ends up getting initted significantly later in the init process and that was uncovering bugs in other drivers where they weren't expressing their dependencies properly. I was going to try to fix those bugs separately but it seemed to make some sense to prioritize this bus a little bit anyway by using subsys_initcall(). ...but maybe that's just wrong. Unless you think it's a bug or terrible form to use subsys_initcall() I'd rather leave that. Is that OK? >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > The header says GPL v2 only, so "GPL v2". Done. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAD=FV=XUEcUx3NGCm+KijRGujECVTSJ9X5fY=arq-4U_RUdxCQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CAD=FV=XUEcUx3NGCm+KijRGujECVTSJ9X5fY=arq-4U_RUdxCQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 0:41 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511C32B5.20600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Stephen Warren @ 2013-02-14 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Guenter Roeck, Stephen Warren, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, Wolfram Sang, Peter Korsgaard <peter. On 02/13/2013 05:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On 02/13/2013 11:02 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> The i2c-arbitrator driver implements the arbitration scheme that the >>> Embedded Controller (EC) on the ARM Chromebook expects to use for bus >>> multimastering. This i2c-arbitrator driver could also be used in >>> other places where standard i2c bus arbitration can't be used and two >>> extra GPIOs are available for arbitration. >>> >>> This driver is based on code that Simon Glass added to the i2c-s3c2410 >>> driver in the Chrome OS kernel 3.4 tree. The current incarnation as a >>> mux driver is as suggested by Grant Likely. See >>> <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1877311/> for some history. >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-arbitrator.txt ... >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: i2c-arbitrator >> >> That seems pretty generic. What if there are other arbitration schemes? > > OK, going to go with i2c-arbitrator-cros-ec. Hopefully that sounds OK. That seems fine. The mechanism seems potentially a little more generic than just for cros-ec though, but I guess there's no harm naming it after the first implementation. That why "compatible" allows multiple entries anyway. >>> +static int i2c_arbitrator_select(struct i2c_adapter *adap, void *data, u32 chan) >>> +{ >>> + const struct i2c_arbitrator_data *arb = data; >>> + unsigned long stop_retry, stop_time; >>> + >>> + /* Start a round of trying to claim the bus */ >>> + stop_time = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(arb->wait_free_us) + 1; >>> + do { >>> + /* Indicate that we want to claim the bus */ >>> + gpio_set_value(arb->ap_gpio, 0); >> >> The GPIO signals appear to be active low in the code. Instead, I think >> it'd make more sense to extract the polarity of the GPIO from DT, using >> of_get_named_gpio_flags(). > > A little torn here. It adds a bunch of complexity to the code to > handle this case and there are no known or anticipated users. I only > wish that the GPIO polarity could be more hidden from drivers (add > functions like gpio_assert, gpio_deassert, etc)... Yes, that would be nice. Alex, LinusW? > In any case, I've done it. I used the "!!" trick a lot to convert > "zero/non-zero" to "0/1" to at least reduce the lines of code a > little. I think this is common enough that it helps readability > rather than hurting it. >>> +static int __init i2c_arbitrator_init(void) >>> +{ >>> + return platform_driver_register(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); >>> +} >>> +subsys_initcall(i2c_arbitrator_init); >>> + >>> +static void __exit i2c_arbitrator_exit(void) >>> +{ >>> + platform_driver_unregister(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); >>> +} >>> +module_exit(i2c_arbitrator_exit); >> >> You should be able to replace all that with: >> >> module_platform_driver(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); > > Sigh. Yeah, I had that. ...but it ends up getting initted > significantly later in the init process and that was uncovering bugs > in other drivers where they weren't expressing their dependencies > properly. I was going to try to fix those bugs separately but it > seemed to make some sense to prioritize this bus a little bit anyway > by using subsys_initcall(). ...but maybe that's just wrong. > > Unless you think it's a bug or terrible form to use subsys_initcall() > I'd rather leave that. Is that OK? It's certainly a bug if it doesn't work correctly as module_platform_driver(). It'll have to be fixed sometime. I don't think it's a big enough issue for me to object to the patch providing it gets fixed sometime, but I've certainly seem other people push back harder on using subsys_initcall for expressing dependencies; it's not very extensible - what happens if there's another bug in some other driver that requires an even earlier level of initcall? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <511C32B5.20600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <511C32B5.20600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 0:54 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=X=BPQo245kAtPvNUgKjypOYnheYJWcBkq6AA19z99V0w-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 10:01 ` Linus Walleij 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-14 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Warren Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard> Stephen, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> OK, going to go with i2c-arbitrator-cros-ec. Hopefully that sounds OK. > > That seems fine. The mechanism seems potentially a little more generic > than just for cros-ec though, but I guess there's no harm naming it > after the first implementation. That why "compatible" allows multiple > entries anyway. Yup, that was my thought. >>> You should be able to replace all that with: >>> >>> module_platform_driver(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); >> >> Sigh. Yeah, I had that. ...but it ends up getting initted >> significantly later in the init process and that was uncovering bugs >> in other drivers where they weren't expressing their dependencies >> properly. I was going to try to fix those bugs separately but it >> seemed to make some sense to prioritize this bus a little bit anyway >> by using subsys_initcall(). ...but maybe that's just wrong. >> >> Unless you think it's a bug or terrible form to use subsys_initcall() >> I'd rather leave that. Is that OK? > > It's certainly a bug if it doesn't work correctly as > module_platform_driver(). It'll have to be fixed sometime. > > I don't think it's a big enough issue for me to object to the patch > providing it gets fixed sometime, but I've certainly seem other people > push back harder on using subsys_initcall for expressing dependencies; > it's not very extensible - what happens if there's another bug in some > other driver that requires an even earlier level of initcall? I don't like it either. I'll give it a few hours tomorrow and hopefully I can track down the problem. If I can't track it down or if I come up with a really good justification for why it's needed I'll leave it with subsys_initcall() unless someone gives me a big nak. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAD=FV=X=BPQo245kAtPvNUgKjypOYnheYJWcBkq6AA19z99V0w-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CAD=FV=X=BPQo245kAtPvNUgKjypOYnheYJWcBkq6AA19z99V0w-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 21:40 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=UYEqreNbUAxHydmWH+66pOORMB_uFokivLitsavzTcsQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-14 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Warren Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>>> You should be able to replace all that with: >>>> >>>> module_platform_driver(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); >>> >>> Sigh. Yeah, I had that. ...but it ends up getting initted >>> significantly later in the init process and that was uncovering bugs >>> in other drivers where they weren't expressing their dependencies >>> properly. I was going to try to fix those bugs separately but it >>> seemed to make some sense to prioritize this bus a little bit anyway >>> by using subsys_initcall(). ...but maybe that's just wrong. >>> >>> Unless you think it's a bug or terrible form to use subsys_initcall() >>> I'd rather leave that. Is that OK? >> >> It's certainly a bug if it doesn't work correctly as >> module_platform_driver(). It'll have to be fixed sometime. >> >> I don't think it's a big enough issue for me to object to the patch >> providing it gets fixed sometime, but I've certainly seem other people >> push back harder on using subsys_initcall for expressing dependencies; >> it's not very extensible - what happens if there's another bug in some >> other driver that requires an even earlier level of initcall? > > I don't like it either. I'll give it a few hours tomorrow and > hopefully I can track down the problem. If I can't track it down or > if I come up with a really good justification for why it's needed I'll > leave it with subsys_initcall() unless someone gives me a big nak. OK, so I dug into my problems here a little bit. All of the problems are with a private branch that includes stuff not fully upstream, but... The problem is that we've got a regulator (tps65090) on this bus. Right now the first code that wants to use tps65090 runs from the set_power() callback of "platform-lcd". It looks like: lcd_fet = regulator_get(NULL, "lcd_vdd"); ...and "platform-lcd" is instantiated really early via platform_device_register() for some reason. I tried to fix it by moving platform-lcd to actually be instantiated via the device tree (with platform data populated through of_platform_populate). I then hooked up regulators through the device tree: platform-lcd { compatible = "platform-lcd"; vcd_led-supply = <&vcd_led>; lcd_vdd-supply = <&lcd_vdd>; }; ...I verified that these worked (needed a small mod to tps65090) when I used subsys_initcall(). AKA: I could rename lcd_vdd-supply to doug-supply and then change the code to ask for doug-supply and it worked so I know that the device tree regulator association worked. ...but when I moved to module_platform_driver() then things still broke. [ 1.510000] platform-lcd supply lcd_vdd not found, using dummy regulator I was sorta hoping that there would be some magic where regulator_get() would find the device tree node for the regulator and then resolve the chain. ...but maybe that's a pipe dream. Is there some better way I should be expressing dependencies? Do I need to try to hack something together with -EAGAIN (ick!)? I will point out that the i2c bus that we're arbitrating on also registers with subsys_initcall(). In any case, I've spent my few hours today. It's not a waste of time since the above learnings were good, but I haven't actually found a way to avoid the subsys_initcall(). Unless someone can point to what I'm missing, I'll send another patch up with subsys_initcall(), hopefully by the end of the day... Thanks for listening! -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAD=FV=UYEqreNbUAxHydmWH+66pOORMB_uFokivLitsavzTcsQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CAD=FV=UYEqreNbUAxHydmWH+66pOORMB_uFokivLitsavzTcsQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 23:35 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511D74DD.9070600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 10:24 ` Mark Brown 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Stephen Warren @ 2013-02-14 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard> On 02/14/2013 02:40 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>>>> You should be able to replace all that with: >>>>> >>>>> module_platform_driver(&i2c_arbitrator_driver); ... > OK, so I dug into my problems here a little bit. All of the problems > are with a private branch that includes stuff not fully upstream, > but... > > The problem is that we've got a regulator (tps65090) on this bus. > Right now the first code that wants to use tps65090 runs from the > set_power() callback of "platform-lcd". It looks like: > lcd_fet = regulator_get(NULL, "lcd_vdd"); > > ...and "platform-lcd" is instantiated really early via > platform_device_register() for some reason. > > I tried to fix it by moving platform-lcd to actually be instantiated > via the device tree (with platform data populated through > of_platform_populate). I then hooked up regulators through the device > tree: It shouldn't matter when the platform-lcd device is instantiated, so doing it via a board file vs. a device tree shouldn't make much difference. ... > ...but when I moved to module_platform_driver() then things still broke. > > [ 1.510000] platform-lcd supply lcd_vdd not found, using dummy regulator What prints that? I assume that's some error-handling logic in the platform-lcd driver. It's probably not detecting an -EPROBE_DEFFERED return from regulator_get() correctly, and hence proceeding with the probe() when it should simply return and let the kernel retry the probe() later. > I was sorta hoping that there would be some magic where > regulator_get() would find the device tree node for the regulator and > then resolve the chain. ...but maybe that's a pipe dream. regulator_get() won't forcibly probe() the whole dependency chain. The idea is that if a driver tries to get a resource, and it fails with -EPROBE_DEFER, the requesting driver should fail its own probe() with that same error code, and the driver core will retry the failed probe() later when the resource is hopefully available. > Is there some better way I should be expressing dependencies? Do I > need to try to hack something together with -EAGAIN (ick!)? Yes, basically. -EPROBE_DEFER specifically, although that might be an alias for -EGAIN; I can't remember which way that went. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <511D74DD.9070600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <511D74DD.9070600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 23:59 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=Uri9O=iuuUKB9nPKW+6C+A_WsqW0sXB2nS5i7+=NtFKA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-14 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Warren Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard> Stephen, On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> [ 1.510000] platform-lcd supply lcd_vdd not found, using dummy regulator > > What prints that? I assume that's some error-handling logic in the > platform-lcd driver. It's probably not detecting an -EPROBE_DEFFERED > return from regulator_get() correctly, and hence proceeding with the > probe() when it should simply return and let the kernel retry the > probe() later. It's printed by "core.c" in drivers/regulator. pr_warn("%s supply %s not found, using dummy regulator\n", devname, id); rdev = dummy_regulator_rdev; goto found; We can avoid that logic with has_full_constraints. That will be some work to get done but also should be done at some point in time. Once we use has_full_constraints we'll get ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); ...but then we're SOL since the function callback that is setting this regulator has this prototype: void (*set_power)(struct plat_lcd_data *, unsigned int power); ...notice a lack of an error return. ...and actually a lack of pretty much everything. platform-lcd needs some lovin. >> Is there some better way I should be expressing dependencies? Do I >> need to try to hack something together with -EAGAIN (ick!)? > > Yes, basically. -EPROBE_DEFER specifically, although that might be an > alias for -EGAIN; I can't remember which way that went. Fair enough; if deferring and hoping is the way that it's done then I'll need to live with it. ...since there are a lot of yaks to shave to actually get -EPROBE_DEFER to work (fix so that has_full_constraints works and also fix so that platform-lcd can handle failure of lcd_set_power), I'm still planning to send up the patch with subsys_initcall as soon as I can. I have filed a bug in the Chromium OS tracker to track at least the issues with platform-lcd: http://crosbug.com/38971 -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAD=FV=Uri9O=iuuUKB9nPKW+6C+A_WsqW0sXB2nS5i7+=NtFKA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CAD=FV=Uri9O=iuuUKB9nPKW+6C+A_WsqW0sXB2nS5i7+=NtFKA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-15 0:16 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511D7E5D.1030003-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Stephen Warren @ 2013-02-15 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard> On 02/14/2013 04:59 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Stephen, > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> [ 1.510000] platform-lcd supply lcd_vdd not found, using dummy regulator >> >> What prints that? I assume that's some error-handling logic in the >> platform-lcd driver. It's probably not detecting an -EPROBE_DEFFERED >> return from regulator_get() correctly, and hence proceeding with the >> probe() when it should simply return and let the kernel retry the >> probe() later. > > It's printed by "core.c" in drivers/regulator. > > pr_warn("%s supply %s not found, using dummy regulator\n", > devname, id); > rdev = dummy_regulator_rdev; > goto found; > > We can avoid that logic with has_full_constraints. That will be some > work to get done but also should be done at some point in time. Once > we use has_full_constraints we'll get ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); That flag is normally set automatically: static int __init regulator_init_complete(void) ... /* * Since DT doesn't provide an idiomatic mechanism for * enabling full constraints and since it's much more natural * with DT to provide them just assume that a DT enabled * system has full constraints. */ if (of_have_populated_dt()) has_full_constraints = true; Is of_have_populated_dt() not returning true for you? Perhaps when using the initcall, your regulator_get()s are happening before regulator_init_complete() gets called, which is the source of the problem? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <511D7E5D.1030003-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <511D7E5D.1030003-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-15 1:14 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=USf_YSzW1ZN2NWZKnLk_LPpnFpxRy=AGVyn_YHjRpKyw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-15 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Warren Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard> Stephen, On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> We can avoid that logic with has_full_constraints. That will be some >> work to get done but also should be done at some point in time. Once >> we use has_full_constraints we'll get ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > > That flag is normally set automatically: > > static int __init regulator_init_complete(void) > ... > /* > * Since DT doesn't provide an idiomatic mechanism for > * enabling full constraints and since it's much more natural > * with DT to provide them just assume that a DT enabled > * system has full constraints. > */ > if (of_have_populated_dt()) > has_full_constraints = true; > > Is of_have_populated_dt() not returning true for you? Perhaps when using > the initcall, your regulator_get()s are happening before > regulator_init_complete() gets called, which is the source of the problem? The regulator_get() calls are before regulator_init_complete() by quite a margin. The regulator_init_complete() is a late_initcall, so that's not too surprising. Are we not supposed to access regulators until after late_init()? That seems like quite a limitation... Note: I did send up a v2 of the patch series that you probably saw. It still uses subsys_initcall(). I can easily send up a v3 if you would like. Worst case I can carry a local patch to hack the arbitrator driver to use subsys_initcall() until we fix everything else. One other argument for using subsys_initcall(), though. Using module_platform_driver() means that we end up going through device_initcall(). I would argue that since we're providing a bus we're much more of a "subsystem" than a "device". ...or is that a BS argument? Certainly if you end up building this code as a module then it'll get called late anyway, but hopefully you wouldn't do that on a system that had really critical components on the provided bus? Let me know if you're happy with v2 or if you'd like me to make a rev. Thanks! :) -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAD=FV=USf_YSzW1ZN2NWZKnLk_LPpnFpxRy=AGVyn_YHjRpKyw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CAD=FV=USf_YSzW1ZN2NWZKnLk_LPpnFpxRy=AGVyn_YHjRpKyw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-15 10:26 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-02-15 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --] On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:14:35PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > The regulator_get() calls are before regulator_init_complete() by > quite a margin. The regulator_init_complete() is a late_initcall, so > that's not too surprising. Are we not supposed to access regulators > until after late_init()? That seems like quite a limitation... No, they should work fine at all points (the worst that'll happen is that you might get a few extra deferrals). [-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --] _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CAD=FV=UYEqreNbUAxHydmWH+66pOORMB_uFokivLitsavzTcsQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 23:35 ` Stephen Warren @ 2013-02-15 10:24 ` Mark Brown [not found] ` <20130215102420.GA22283-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-02-15 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --] On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:40:49PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote: > ...but when I moved to module_platform_driver() then things still broke. > [ 1.510000] platform-lcd supply lcd_vdd not found, using dummy regulator > I was sorta hoping that there would be some magic where > regulator_get() would find the device tree node for the regulator and > then resolve the chain. ...but maybe that's a pipe dream. You shouldn't have dummy regulators enabled at all, that'll break a bunch of stuff including dependency resolution. They're a crutch to help get things booting not something you should be using in production. If they're not enabled regulator_get() will defer the probe. [-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --] _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20130215102420.GA22283-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <20130215102420.GA22283-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-15 19:56 ` Linus Walleij [not found] ` <CACRpkdav8WO5yOSLPLtpUCeM41nttrbspRb7YrsqGXJ01ebMhw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 21:05 ` Doug Anderson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2013-02-15 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Mark Brown <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:40:49PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> ...but when I moved to module_platform_driver() then things still broke. > >> [ 1.510000] platform-lcd supply lcd_vdd not found, using dummy regulator > >> I was sorta hoping that there would be some magic where >> regulator_get() would find the device tree node for the regulator and >> then resolve the chain. ...but maybe that's a pipe dream. > > You shouldn't have dummy regulators enabled at all, that'll break a > bunch of stuff including dependency resolution. They're a crutch to > help get things booting not something you should be using in production. > If they're not enabled regulator_get() will defer the probe. Hm, totally unrelated but Mark, should we consider marking the kernel tainted when the dummy regulators are in use? (And likewise for the dummy pinctrl I guess.) We could use some TAINT_INCONSISTENT_RESOURCES or something. I was thinking it could help to draw attention to resolving the platforms that stick dummy stuff in them and never get rid of it. But maybe this would be too rude? Yours, Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CACRpkdav8WO5yOSLPLtpUCeM41nttrbspRb7YrsqGXJ01ebMhw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CACRpkdav8WO5yOSLPLtpUCeM41nttrbspRb7YrsqGXJ01ebMhw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-17 16:03 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-02-17 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Walleij Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 364 bytes --] On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > Hm, totally unrelated but Mark, should we consider marking the > kernel tainted when the dummy regulators are in use? > (And likewise for the dummy pinctrl I guess.) It's not a bad idea, though since it tends not to result in kernel crashes we wouldn't see the taint report as often as we'd like. [-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --] _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <20130215102420.GA22283-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 19:56 ` Linus Walleij @ 2013-02-15 21:05 ` Doug Anderson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-15 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren, Wolfram Sang, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Guenter Roeck, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard, Yuvaraj Kumar Mark / Stephen, On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Mark Brown <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote: > You shouldn't have dummy regulators enabled at all, that'll break a > bunch of stuff including dependency resolution. They're a crutch to > help get things booting not something you should be using in production. > If they're not enabled regulator_get() will defer the probe. Argh, that'll learn me. :P The CONFIG_REGULATOR_DUMMY=y was only present in the "work in progress" tree that I was using to test integration. It's not present anywhere else. ...so I guess that mystery is solved. We'll still need to figure out how to plumb EPROBE_DEFER handling into a few more places to get the issue fully solved, but at least a bunch of mysteries (to me) are solved. I think v3 of the patch series is in pretty good shape till the next person takes a gander at it. ;) -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <511C32B5.20600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 0:54 ` Doug Anderson @ 2013-02-14 10:01 ` Linus Walleij [not found] ` <CACRpkdaUtOe9g7+T=cWPepeGae6RcJ1nTeGc9opTijcYzfMedQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2013-02-14 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Warren, Grant Likely, Lee Jones Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Guenter Roeck, Stephen Warren, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Korsgaard <peter. On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: > On 02/13/2013 05:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> A little torn here. It adds a bunch of complexity to the code to >> handle this case and there are no known or anticipated users. I only >> wish that the GPIO polarity could be more hidden from drivers (add >> functions like gpio_assert, gpio_deassert, etc)... > > Yes, that would be nice. Alex, LinusW? OK so good point since Alex is rewriting the way the external API to GPIOs is done. So this is one of the evolutionary artifacts of the GPIO subsystem: that it has this concept of clients having to know if they want to drive the line low or high. Either way somewhere in the system the knowledge of whether the low or high state counts as asserted must be stored. The same goes for inputs really: for example we have a platform data flag for drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c that tells whether a card is inserted when the line goes low or high. And this varies between platforms. So that would lead to gpio_get_value() being rewritten as gpio_is_asserted() as well. We all agree that the meaning of a certain GPIO pins high vs low state as asserter or deasserted is a machine- specific thing, so it need to come from device tree or platform data. So what this is really all about is whether that knowledge should be part of the consumer DT node/platform data or the producer DT node/platform data. I.e. in the MMCI case whether we encode that into the DT node/pdata for the GPIO controller or the MMCI controller. A bit like whether to eat eggs from the big or little end you could say :-) But changing it would have very drastic effects. Consider this snippet from arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts: // External Micro SD slot sdi0_per1@80126000 { arm,primecell-periphid = <0x10480180>; max-frequency = <50000000>; bus-width = <4>; mmc-cap-mmc-highspeed; vmmc-supply = <&ab8500_ldo_aux3_reg>; cd-gpios = <&gpio6 26 0x4>; // 218 cd-inverted; status = "okay"; }; Note property "cd-inverted". It states whether the GPIO value is active high (default) or active low (this flag set). Ironically the binding document is incomplete but we have to support device trees like this going forward. How do I make sure that this device tree continue to work as expected if we change the semantic of the GPIO subsystem to only provide gpio_is_asserted()? You would have to include a function call to the GPIO core and tell it what is asserted and what is not, like gpiod_set_assertion_polarity() so the driver can also tell the GPIO subsystem what is asserted and what is not, rather than encoding that at the GPIO end of things. So all of a sudden *both* the consumers and the providers can define assertion sematics for the pins. What happens if they are in disagreement? So I don't know if that is such a good idea, it just makes everything much more complex to handle for questionable gain. Another issue would be with things like bit-banged buses, I don't thing an I2C bus with inverted semantics is that very useful, and it makes things hard to debug for the user, it's much more clear if the bitbang is driving the line high or low than if it's asserting or deasserting it. Yours, Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CACRpkdaUtOe9g7+T=cWPepeGae6RcJ1nTeGc9opTijcYzfMedQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver [not found] ` <CACRpkdaUtOe9g7+T=cWPepeGae6RcJ1nTeGc9opTijcYzfMedQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2013-02-14 17:37 ` Stephen Warren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Stephen Warren @ 2013-02-14 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Walleij Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Daniel Kurtz, Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Lee Jones, Guenter Roeck, Stephen Warren, Ben Dooks, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ, Grant Grundler, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ, Rob Herring, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Courbot, Ben Dooks (embedded platforms), Girish Shivananjappa, bhushan.r, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi, sreekumar.c, Mark Brown, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 02/14/2013 03:01 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On 02/13/2013 05:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > >>> A little torn here. It adds a bunch of complexity to the code to >>> handle this case and there are no known or anticipated users. I only >>> wish that the GPIO polarity could be more hidden from drivers (add >>> functions like gpio_assert, gpio_deassert, etc)... >> >> Yes, that would be nice. Alex, LinusW? > > OK so good point since Alex is rewriting the way the external > API to GPIOs is done. > > So this is one of the evolutionary artifacts of the GPIO subsystem: > that it has this concept of clients having to know if they want to > drive the line low or high. > > Either way somewhere in the system the knowledge of whether > the low or high state counts as asserted must be stored. > > The same goes for inputs really: for example we have a > platform data flag for drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c that tells > whether a card is inserted when the line goes low or high. And > this varies between platforms. > > So that would lead to gpio_get_value() being rewritten > as gpio_is_asserted() as well. > > We all agree that the meaning of a certain GPIO pins > high vs low state as asserter or deasserted is a machine- > specific thing, so it need to come from device tree or platform > data. > > So what this is really all about is whether that knowledge > should be part of the consumer DT node/platform data > or the producer DT node/platform data. > > I.e. in the MMCI case whether we encode that into the > DT node/pdata for the GPIO controller or the MMCI > controller. > > A bit like whether to eat eggs from the big or little end > you could say :-) > > But changing it would have very drastic effects. > Consider this snippet from > arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts: > > // External Micro SD slot > sdi0_per1@80126000 { > arm,primecell-periphid = <0x10480180>; > max-frequency = <50000000>; > bus-width = <4>; > mmc-cap-mmc-highspeed; > vmmc-supply = <&ab8500_ldo_aux3_reg>; > > cd-gpios = <&gpio6 26 0x4>; // 218 > cd-inverted; > > status = "okay"; > }; > > Note property "cd-inverted". > > It states whether the GPIO value is active high (default) or > active low (this flag set). Ironically the binding document is > incomplete but we have to support device trees like this > going forward. > > How do I make sure that this device tree continue to work > as expected if we change the semantic of the GPIO subsystem > to only provide gpio_is_asserted()? > > You would have to include a function call to the GPIO core > and tell it what is asserted and what is not, like > gpiod_set_assertion_polarity() so the driver can also > tell the GPIO subsystem what is asserted and what is not, > rather than encoding that at the GPIO end of things. > > So all of a sudden *both* the consumers and the providers > can define assertion sematics for the pins. What happens > if they are in disagreement? I think it's actually binding-specific. Either a binding assumed that the GPIO specifier might not include an inversion flag, and hence included its own alternative (cd-inverted), or it assumed that the GPIO specifier would always include this flag, and hence relied purely on the GPIO flags. Drivers are written to support specific bindings, and hence they know which case they fall into. Hence, I think we want something like: Case 1: Just use GPIO specifier flags: gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(np, name, index, &flags); gpio_request_with_flags(gpio, flags); Case 2: Just use binding-specific property: gpio = of_get_named_gpio(np, name, index); flags = 0; if (of_property_read_bool(np, name)) flags |= FLAG_INVERTED; gpio_request_with_flags(gpio, flags); Or something like that. That seems simple enough? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-17 16:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-02-13 18:02 [PATCH v1 1/4] i2c: mux: Add i2c-arbitrator 'mux' driver Doug Anderson [not found] ` <1360778532-7480-1-git-send-email-dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-13 18:45 ` Olof Johansson 2013-02-13 18:49 ` Olof Johansson 2013-02-13 21:02 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511BFF77.2090202-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 0:34 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=XUEcUx3NGCm+KijRGujECVTSJ9X5fY=arq-4U_RUdxCQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 0:41 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511C32B5.20600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 0:54 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=X=BPQo245kAtPvNUgKjypOYnheYJWcBkq6AA19z99V0w-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 21:40 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=UYEqreNbUAxHydmWH+66pOORMB_uFokivLitsavzTcsQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 23:35 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511D74DD.9070600-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 23:59 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=Uri9O=iuuUKB9nPKW+6C+A_WsqW0sXB2nS5i7+=NtFKA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 0:16 ` Stephen Warren [not found] ` <511D7E5D.1030003-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 1:14 ` Doug Anderson [not found] ` <CAD=FV=USf_YSzW1ZN2NWZKnLk_LPpnFpxRy=AGVyn_YHjRpKyw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 10:26 ` Mark Brown 2013-02-15 10:24 ` Mark Brown [not found] ` <20130215102420.GA22283-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-15 19:56 ` Linus Walleij [not found] ` <CACRpkdav8WO5yOSLPLtpUCeM41nttrbspRb7YrsqGXJ01ebMhw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-17 16:03 ` Mark Brown 2013-02-15 21:05 ` Doug Anderson 2013-02-14 10:01 ` Linus Walleij [not found] ` <CACRpkdaUtOe9g7+T=cWPepeGae6RcJ1nTeGc9opTijcYzfMedQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2013-02-14 17:37 ` Stephen Warren
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).