From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: add get_direction function
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:08:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170315050850.GC1694@minitux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1152d48-004e-71bc-16a1-3a25990ba9e4@codeaurora.org>
On Tue 14 Mar 17:12 PDT 2017, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > > > The idea is to notify drivers with an error code when they make a
> > > > mistake. Perhaps the device tree or the ACPI table has an error?
>
> > In general the kernel isn't a firmware validator. At least that's
> > the way I view it. Others may have different opinions here.
>
> I would be okay with wrapping that check around #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO.
>
This will, more or less, only be useful for system integrators - whom
likely won't enable DEBUG_GPIO. But I'm generally fine with failing
gpio_set if we're not in function 0.
My question is if we should wrap that check in a WARN(), just to make it
easy for said system integrator to spot the issue - or if that will just
leave another chunk of printouts that people will ignore in their
products.
> > > > I could add that, but I still think returning an error code is
> > > > appropriate. On the TLMM, we know for sure that the pin must be set
> > > > to function 0 in order for the read/write routines to operate
> > > > correctly.
>
> > On ACPI we could make the gpio_get() path fail if the pin isn't
> > in GPIO mode?
>
> Did you mean the gpio_chip.request callback? Currently that points to
> gpiochip_generic_request in pinctrl-msm.c.
>
It might be useful to fail gpio_get, as that gives a much nicer error
path in the client. But I'm slightly concerned about the few cases where
one of the pinmux states is gpio and that this would force the
gpio_get() only to be called after switching to that particular mode.
@Linus, have there been any discussion around this in other drivers?
Regards,
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-15 5:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-10 23:21 [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: add get_direction function Timur Tabi
2017-02-10 23:25 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-02-11 21:32 ` Timur Tabi
2017-02-22 15:51 ` Linus Walleij
2017-02-22 15:49 ` Linus Walleij
2017-03-06 21:52 ` Timur Tabi
2017-03-14 21:41 ` Linus Walleij
2017-03-14 21:55 ` Timur Tabi
2017-03-14 23:30 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-03-14 23:34 ` Timur Tabi
2017-03-14 23:41 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-03-15 0:12 ` Timur Tabi
2017-03-15 5:08 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2017-03-15 13:08 ` 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=20170315050850.GC1694@minitux \
--to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=timur@codeaurora.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).