From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pinctrl: core: Use delayed work for hogs Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:28:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20170111162808.GW2630@atomide.com> References: <20161227172003.6517-1-tony@atomide.com> <20161227172003.6517-2-tony@atomide.com> <20170110153045.GS2630@atomide.com> <20170110191908.GV2630@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Haojian Zhuang , Masahiro Yamada , Grygorii Strashko , Nishanth Menon , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Renesas List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org * Linus Walleij [170111 07:34]: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Below is an experimental fix to intorduce pinctrl_start() that I've > > tested with pinctrl-single. Then we should probably make all pin controller > > drivers call pinctrl_start() to properly fix the issue of struct pinctrl_dev > > handle not being initialized before driver functions are called. > > Hm I guess that could work, but can we keep pinctrl_register() with the old > semantics and add a separate pinctrl_register_and_defer() > for those who just wanna start it later by a separate call? > > Then we don't need any special flags. OK I'll take a look. > > Or do you guys have any better ideas? > > Not really. So you mean revert the previous patch and apply something > like this instead? Let me first take a look to see if we can fix it by making drivers using GENERIC_PINCTRL_GROUPS or GENERIC_PINMUX_FUNCTIONS register with pinctrl_register_and_defer(). I'll post a patch for that today. Then maybe for v4.12 we can attempt to move all pin controller drivers to using it so we can fix the problem for good. Regards, Tony