linux-omap.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Cc: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:10:50 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51715772.9020003@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sj2mzkcf.fsf@linaro.org>

On Friday 19 April 2013 07:35 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> writes:
> 
>> On Friday 19 April 2013 06:19 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/18/2013 07:34 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/18/2013 06:10 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 04/18/2013 04:34 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just init context right here if bank->loses_context &&
>>>>>> !bank->context_valid?
>>>>
>>>> I really like this idea a lot. It can really clean-up the code
>>>> and really make it much more readable. Before we were playing 
>>>> some tricks with when we init'ed the get_context_loss_count()
>>>> function pointer. How about the below?
>>>>
>>>> Tony, care to re-test?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> From d7a940531d354e6be5e16ee50fa8344041df963a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:06:54 -0500
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised
>>>>
>>>> Commit a2797be (gpio/omap: force restore if context loss is not
>>>> detectable) broke gpio support for OMAP when booting with device-tree
>>>> because a restore of the gpio context being performed without ever
>>>> initialising the gpio context. In other words, the context restored was
>>>> bad.
>>>>
>>>> This problem could also occur in the non device-tree case, however, it
>>>> is much less likely because when booting without device-tree we can
>>>> detect context loss via a platform specific API and so context restore
>>>> is performed less often.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless we should ensure that the gpio context is initialised
>>>> on the first pm-runtime resume for gpio banks that could lose their
>>>> state regardless of whether we are booting with device-tree or not.
>>>>
>>>> The context loss count was being initialised on the first pm-runtime
>>>> suspend following a resume, by populating the get_count_loss_count()
>>>> function pointer after the first pm-runtime resume. To make the code
>>>> more readable and logical, initialise the context loss count on the
>>>> first pm-runtime resume if the context is not yet valid.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c |   45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>> index 0557529..db3c732 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>> @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ struct gpio_bank {
>>>>  	bool is_mpuio;
>>>>  	bool dbck_flag;
>>>>  	bool loses_context;
>>>> +	bool context_valid;
>>>>  	int stride;
>>>>  	u32 width;
>>>>  	int context_loss_count;
>>>> @@ -1129,6 +1130,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>  			bank->loses_context = true;
>>>>  	} else {
>>>>  		bank->loses_context = pdata->loses_context;
>>>> +		bank->get_context_loss_count = pdata->get_context_loss_count;
>>>
>>> Still need to check loses_context for populating
>>> get_context_loss_count here. Updated patch below.
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> From d02ef7b7dfcf8e13bf019aedfdecb38ca3c6749f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:06:54 -0500
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised
>>>
>>> Commit a2797be (gpio/omap: force restore if context loss is not
>>> detectable) broke gpio support for OMAP when booting with device-tree
>>> because a restore of the gpio context being performed without ever
>>> initialising the gpio context. In other words, the context restored was
>>> bad.
>>>
>>> This problem could also occur in the non device-tree case, however, it
>>> is much less likely because when booting without device-tree we can
>>> detect context loss via a platform specific API and so context restore
>>> is performed less often.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless we should ensure that the gpio context is initialised
>>> on the first pm-runtime resume for gpio banks that could lose their
>>> state regardless of whether we are booting with device-tree or not.
>>>
>>> The context loss count was being initialised on the first pm-runtime
>>> suspend following a resume, by populating the get_count_loss_count()
>>> function pointer after the first pm-runtime resume. To make the code
>>> more readable and logical, initialise the context loss count on the
>>> first pm-runtime resume if the context is not yet valid.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
>>> ---
>> This version looks better than the first one for sure. I am still not
>> happy with per bank "context_valid" flag whose job just ends after
>> the probe. 
> 
> Assuming this driver could become a module someday (not terribly likely,
> I know), but context_valid would have meaning for each module reload.
> 
I don't think GPIO can ever be a module(at least on OMAP) considering the way
it is used in many SOCs and hence the objection on that flag. GPIO is really
an infrastructure driver which is needed to be always available for the
client drivers to work. 

Regards,
Santosh

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-19 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-17 20:31 [PATCH] gpio/omap: ensure gpio context is initialised Jon Hunter
2013-04-18  8:22 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-04-18 16:46   ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-18 21:34 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-04-18 23:10   ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-19  0:34     ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-19  0:49       ` Jon Hunter
2013-04-19  6:32         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-04-19 14:05           ` Kevin Hilman
2013-04-19 14:40             ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2013-04-19 15:36               ` Tony Lindgren
2013-04-26  7:54         ` 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=51715772.9020003@ti.com \
    --to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=jon-hunter@ti.com \
    --cc=khilman@linaro.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /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).