Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: stmfx: Fix compile issue when CONFIG_OF_GPIO is not defined

Lee Jones
2019-05-22T09:30:32Z

On Wed, 22 May 2019, Amelie DELAUNAY wrote:

> On 5/22/19 10:41 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2019, Amelie DELAUNAY wrote:
> >> On 5/22/19 7:48 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 May 2019, Amelie Delaunay wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> When CONFIG_GPIO_OF is not defined, struct gpio_chip 'of_node' member does
> >>>> not exist:
> >>>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c: In function 'stmfx_pinctrl_probe':
> >>>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c:652:17: error: 'struct gpio_chip' has no member named 'of_node'
> >>>> pctl->gpio_chip.of_node = np;
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 1490d9f841b1 ("pinctrl: Add STMFX GPIO expander Pinctrl/GPIO driver")
> >>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c
> >>>> index eba872c..bb64aa0 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c
> >>>> @@ -648,7 +648,9 @@ static int stmfx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> pctl->gpio_chip.base = -1;
> >>>> pctl->gpio_chip.ngpio = pctl->pctl_desc.npins;
> >>>> pctl->gpio_chip.can_sleep = true;
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
> >>>> pctl->gpio_chip.of_node = np;
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>
> >>> This is pretty ugly. Will STMFX ever be used without OF support? If
> >>> not, it might be better to place this restriction on the driver as a
> >>> whole.
> >>>
> >>> Incidentally, why is this blanked out in the structure definition?
> >>> Even 'struct device' doesn't do this.
> >>>
> >> config PINCTRL_STMFX
> >> tristate "STMicroelectronics STMFX GPIO expander pinctrl driver"
> >> depends on I2C
> >> depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
> >> select GENERIC_PINCONF
> >> select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
> >> select MFD_STMFX
> >>
> >> The issue is due to COMPILE_TEST: would "depends on OF || (OF &&
> >> COMPILE_TEST)" be better ?
> >
> > Linus would be in a better position to respond, but from what I can
> > see, maybe:
> >
> > depends on OF || (OF_GPIO && COMPILE_TEST)
> >
> > Although, I'm unsure why other COMPILE_TESTs haven't highlighted this
> > issue. Perhaps because they have all been locked down to a particular
> > arch:
> >
> > $ grep COMPILE_TEST -- drivers/pinctrl/Kconfig
> > bool "Support pin multiplexing controllers" if COMPILE_TEST
> > bool "Support pin configuration controllers" if COMPILE_TEST
> > depends on OF && (ARCH_DAVINCI_DA850 || COMPILE_TEST)
> > depends on OF && (ARCH_DIGICOLOR || COMPILE_TEST)
> > depends on OF && (ARCH_LPC18XX || COMPILE_TEST)
> > depends on ARCH_R7S72100 || COMPILE_TEST
> > depends on ARCH_R7S9210 || COMPILE_TEST
> > depends on ARCH_RZN1 || COMPILE_TEST
> > depends on MIPS || COMPILE_TEST
> >
> > What about adding this to your Kconfig entry:
> >
> > select OF_GPIO
> >
>
> Yes COMPILE_TEST is combined with arch when depending on OF. But STMFX
> isn't arch dependent, it is just OF and I2C dependent.
>
> Randy also see a build error in pinctrl-stmfx.c when CONFIG_OF is not
> set/enabled (randconfig):
>
> ../drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c:409:20: error:
> ‘pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_pin’ undeclared here (not in a function)
> .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_pin,
>
> OF_GPIO depends on OF.
>
> So either
> depends on OF || (OF && COMPILE_TEST)
> or
> depends on OF || (OF_GPIO && COMPILE_TEST)
>
> and
>
> select OF_GPIO
>
> What is the prettiest way ?

I'll leave the final call up to Linus.

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog