From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: cjb@laptop.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca,
rob.herring@calxeda.com, rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk,
ulf.hansson@stericsson.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
aletes.xgr@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:19:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FDEF293.9080305@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FDE8D27.6030508@wwwdotorg.org>
On 06/18/2012 04:06 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/17/2012 04:11 AM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> of_get_named_gpio_flags() and of_get_named_gpio() return -EPROBE_DEFER if the
>> respective GPIO is not (yet) available. This is useful if driver's probe()
>> functions try to get a GPIO whose controller isn't probed yet. Thus, the driver
>> can be probed again later on.
>>
>> The function still returns -EINVAL on other errors (parse error or node doesn't
>> exist). This way, the case of an optional/intentionally missing GPIO is handled
>> appropriately.
>
> While I agree this is a correct change, it is going to break some
> existing code - at least sound/soc/tegra/tegra_{wm8903.c,alc5632.c}.
Can you please tell in which way the patch breaks those drivers?
However, I can see that those drivers solved the same problem in a
different way (deferring of_get_named_gpio(), via the sound init()). So
they could be adjusted to take advantage of new -EPROBE_DEFER.
> I'm
> happy to send patches for those files though (is this going into 3.5 or
> 3.6?).
For 3.6 would be best, IMO.
> However, have you audited all existing callers (including
> indirect, e.g. through plain of_get_named_gpio()) for issues this will
> cause?
Thanks for the hint, I searched the code and found
drivers/spi/spi-pl022.c
to be using -ENODEV as indication to return -EPROBE_DEFER from probe().
Will send a patch that adjusts to our of_get_named_gpio_flags() patch
and if it's good, we should join the two.
Some drivers possibly suffer from the same issue that the patch adresses:
drivers/mfd/twl6040-core.c
drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
drivers/usb/host/ohci-at91.c
drivers/usb/host/ehci-tegra.c
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
drivers/spi/spi-imx.c
drivers/spi/spi-sirf.c
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-tegra.c
drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
drivers/mmc/host/mxs-mmc.c
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
drivers/regulator/tps62360-regulator.c
drivers/regulator/fixed.c
But the breakage therefore exists even before the patch.
Other drivers don't handle the result of of_get_named_gpio*() correctly
at all:
drivers/power/sbs-battery.c
I can help the respective maintainers to work out this issue when we
have the EPROBE_DEFER ready in gpiolib-of.c.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-18 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-17 10:11 [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: mmci.c: Defer probe() in case of yet uninitialized GPIOs Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 16:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-17 18:01 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mmc: mmci.c: Remove wrong error handling of gpio 0 Roland Stigge
2012-06-17 18:06 ` Linus Walleij
2012-06-17 18:04 ` [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER if GPIO not yet available Linus Walleij
2012-06-18 2:06 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 9:19 ` Roland Stigge [this message]
2012-06-18 11:24 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 14:50 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 15:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 15:12 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 15:23 ` Roland Stigge
2012-06-18 15:45 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-18 16:40 ` Roland Stigge
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=4FDEF293.9080305@antcom.de \
--to=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=aletes.xgr@gmail.com \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@stericsson.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