Re: [PATCH 02/21] ARM: tegra: Add gpio-ranges property

Tomeu Vizoso
2015-06-16T07:53:40Z

On 28 May 2015 at 17:50, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 02:26 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> On 27 May 2015 at 16:49, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/27/2015 08:18 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 May 2015 at 21:41, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/25/2015 08:53 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specify how the GPIOs map to the pins in T124, so the dependency is
>>>>>> explicit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi | 1 +
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>>>>> index 13cc7ca..5d1d35f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>>>>> @@ -254,6 +254,7 @@
>>>>>> gpio-controller;
>>>>>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>>>>> interrupt-controller;
>>>>>> + gpio-ranges = <&pinmux 0 0 250>;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We should be consistent between SoCs. Why not make the same change for
>>>>> all
>>>>> Tegra SoCs?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this change will cause the GPIO subsystem to call into the
>>>>> pinctrl
>>>>> subsystem and create/add/register a new GPIO<->pinctrl range structure.
>>>>> The
>>>>> pinctrl driver already does this, so I think we'll end up with two
>>>>> duplicate
>>>>> entries in the pinctrl device's gpio_ranges list. This probably won't
>>>>> cause
>>>>> a problem, but I wanted to make sure you'd thought about it to make
>>>>> sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I have checked and see that gpio-tegra.c registers 256
>>>> gpios, but pinctrl-tegra124.c adds a range of only 251. I don't really
>>>> remember where I got the 250 value from, sorry :(
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how that would cause any concrete problems, but maybe we
>>>> should have a single authoritative source (not sure we can do so
>>>> without breaking DT ABI though).
>>>>
>>>>> Right now, I think we get lucky and pinctrl ends up probing first (or
>>>>> at
>>>>> least very early) anyway. Somewhat related to this series, I wonder if
>>>>> we
>>>>> shouldn't add pinctrl client properties to every node in the Tegra DT
>>>>> that
>>>>> describes a controller that makes use of external pins that are
>>>>> affected
>>>>> by
>>>>> the pinmux. Such a change would guarantee this desired probing order.
>>>>> In
>>>>> order to preserve the "program the entire pinmux at once" semantics,
>>>>> these
>>>>> new pinctrl client properties would all need to reference empty states,
>>>>> yet
>>>>> would still need to exist to represent the dependency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think so, but aren't almost all those pins used as gpios? If so,
>>>> then such a controller's driver will request the gpio it wants which
>>>> will cause the gpio driver to be registered (and hopefully probed) if
>>>> needed, which in turn will check that the corresponding pinctrl device
>>>> has been registered. Or am I missing something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As you say this probably works out fine for pins that are used as GPIOs.
>>> I
>>> was thinking more about SFIOs. Take an I2C controller, which doesn't use
>>> any
>>> GPIOs itself. The pinctrl device should be probed before the I2C device,
>>> so
>>> that the I2C driver can initiate transactions on the I2C bus during its
>>> probe if it wanted to (or at least, clients could initiate transactions
>>> at
>>> any completely arbitrary time as soon as probe was complete).
>>
>>
>> What is using the SFIO in this case, the I2C master or the I2C client?
>
>
> The I2C controller a/k/a the I2C master.
>
>> In any case, is the problem you are referring to that ICs may rely on
>
>
> s/ICs/drivers/ I think.
>
>> a specific pinmux configuration but that's not currently reflected on
>> the DT because pinmux configuration happened so early that things just
>> worked?
>
>
> Yes; the dependency of some nodes on pinctrl isn't explicitly called out in
> the DT. It's probably not a good idea to have such implicit dependencies,
> although I suppose for something so central as pinmux, maybe it's not
> terrible, since almost everything depends on it and it's pretty obvious.

Yup, agreed.

Thanks,

Tomeu