From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>, Tim Sander <tim@krieglstein.org>
Cc: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-designware: add i2c gpio recovery option
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 16:53:11 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1494510791.6967.9.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0aafcff1-6970-e99e-5b93-b0877ebf8579@electromag.com.au>
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:24 +0800, Phil Reid wrote:
> G'day Andy,
>
> Thanks for the review.
You're welcome, just don't forget to remove the parts that are out of
scope and/or you agree with.
> On 10/05/2017 21:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:57 +0200, Tim Sander wrote:
> > > +static int i2c_dw_init_recovery_info(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev,
> > > + struct i2c_adapter *adap)
> > > +{
> > > + struct i2c_bus_recovery_info *rinfo = &dev->rinfo;
> > > +
> > > + dev->gpio_scl = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev->dev,
> > > + "scl",
> > > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->gpio_scl))
> >
> > This is wrong. You should not use this macro in most cases. And
> > especially it breaks the logic behind _optional().
>
> My logic here was that if the gpio is optional return null we return
> 0.
Why?!
_optional() *implies* that all rest calls will go fine and do nothing.
> which is an okay status.
> But this breaks if !CONFIG_GPIOLIB, which I keep forgetting. I've
> never
> quite wrapped my head around why that's the case.
>
> But the probe function only bails out if this returns EPROBE_DEFER.
> Not sure that's the best approach
You need something like
desc = devm_gpiod_get_optional(...);
if (IS_ERR(desc))
return PTR_ERR(desc);
> > > + return PTR_ERR(dev->gpio_sda);
> > > + rinfo->scl_gpio = desc_to_gpio(dev->gpio_scl);
> > > + rinfo->sda_gpio = desc_to_gpio(dev->gpio_sda);
> >
> > Why?!
>
> From my first attempt, didn't remove it from the example I sent.
>
> We could change i2c_init_recovery to something like the following
> then the gpio set / getter could use the default functions.
> Not sure the code is completely correct but hopefully you get the
> concept.
>
> static void i2c_init_recovery(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
> {
> struct i2c_bus_recovery_info *bri = adap->bus_recovery_info;
> char *err_str;
>
> if (!bri)
> return;
>
> if (!bri->recover_bus) {
> err_str = "no recover_bus() found";
> goto err;
> }
>
> /* bail out if either no gpio or no set/get callback. */
> if (!gpio_is_valid(bri->scl_gpio) && (!bri->set_scl || !bri-
> >get_scl)) {
> if (!gpio_is_valid(bri->scl_gpio))
> err_str = "invalid SCL gpio";
> else
> err_str = "no {get|set}_scl() found";
> goto err;
> }
>
> if (gpio_is_valid(bri->sda_gpio))
> bri->get_sda = get_sda_gpio_value;
>
> if (gpio_is_valid(bri->scl_gpio)) {
> bri->get_scl = get_scl_gpio_value;
> bri->set_scl = set_scl_gpio_value;
> }
>
> return;
> err:
> dev_err(&adap->dev, "Not using recovery: %s\n", err_str);
> adap->bus_recovery_info = NULL;
> }
I have briefly looked at the current code.
So, my suggestion is to switch to gpio descriptors in current code and
then rebase your stuff on top.
I wouldn't encourage people to continue using legacy GPIO API.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-11 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-28 15:43 RFC: i2c designware gpio recovery Tim Sander
2017-04-28 16:14 ` Tim Sander
2017-05-01 1:57 ` Phil Reid
2017-05-01 13:31 ` Tim Sander
2017-05-03 1:30 ` Phil Reid
2017-05-03 19:04 ` Tim Sander
2017-05-10 7:12 ` Phil Reid
2017-05-10 11:57 ` [PATCH] i2c-designware: add i2c gpio recovery option Tim Sander
2017-05-10 13:13 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-05-11 1:24 ` Phil Reid
2017-05-11 13:53 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2017-05-11 14:02 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-05-12 1:49 ` Phil Reid
2017-05-12 10:17 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-05-01 2:15 ` RFC: i2c designware gpio recovery Phil Reid
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=1494510791.6967.9.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=preid@electromag.com.au \
--cc=tim@krieglstein.org \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/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).