From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
Lars Poeschel <poeschel@lemonage.de>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: queue GPIO operations instead of defering
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:15:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52126EDE.5060000@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1376751410-14560-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org>
On 08/17/2013 08:56 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> We currently defer probing of the caller if a pinctrl GPIO
> request or direction setting comes in before the range mapping
> a certain GPIO to a certain pin controller is available.
>
> This can end up with a circular dependency: the GPIO driver
> needs the pin controller to be ready
So that much is explained above; it's because some GPIO APIs call into
pinctrl to manage GPIO-vs-pinmux-function setup.
> and the pin controller need the GPIO driver to be ready.
Why does that happen?
> This also happens if
> pin controllers and GPIO controllers compiled as modules
> are inserted in a certain order.
Shouldn't deferred probe resolve that just fine, assuming there are no
circular dependencies? In other words, this is just a special case of
the explanation above, so probably not worth explicitly mentioning.
...
> On the Nomadik we get this situation with the pinctrl
> driver when moving to requesting GPIOs off the gpiochip
> right after it has been added,
So, the pinctrl driver calls gpio_request()? Surely the solution is
simply not to do that?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-19 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-17 14:56 [PATCH v2] pinctrl: queue GPIO operations instead of defering Linus Walleij
2013-08-19 19:15 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2013-08-21 23:07 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-21 23:23 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-21 23:44 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-19 19:21 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-21 17:45 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-21 23:04 ` 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=52126EDE.5060000@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=haojian.zhuang@linaro.org \
--cc=javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=poeschel@lemonage.de \
--cc=swarren@nvidia.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