Hi Andy, > El 4 mar 2021, a las 17:33, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:44 PM Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> El 4 mar 2021, a las 16:28, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:24 PM Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> El 4 mar 2021, a las 16:17, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:06 PM Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> El 4 mar 2021, a las 11:35, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:57 AM Álvaro Fernández Rojas >>>>>>> <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> + * @of_node: (Optional) The device node >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + struct device_node *of_node; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we use fwnode from day 1, please? >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you explain this? I haven’t dealt with fwnode never :$ >>>>>> BTW, this is done to fix this check when parsing gpio ranges: >>>>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/f69d02e37a85645aa90d18cacfff36dba370f797/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c#L933-L934 >>>>> >>>>> Use struct fwnode_handle pointer instead of OF-specific one. >>>> >>>> But is that compatible with the current gpiolib-of code? :$ >>> >>> Yes (after a bit of amendment I have sent today as v2: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20210304150215.80652-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u). >> >> Well that doesn’t fulfill my definition of “current gpiolib-of code”… >> @Linus what should I do about this? > > Well, fwnode is a generic, and I strongly against spreading > OF-specific code when we have fwnode working. But let's hear Linus > out, of course! > > But it seems you are right and the library needs a few more amendments. Yes, but I’m trying to do as few amendments as possible since I already have quite a large amount of patches :) > >>>>> Also here is the question, why do you need to have that field in the >>>>> regmap config structure and can't simply use the parent's fwnode? >>>>> Also I'm puzzled why it's not working w/o this patch: GPIO library >>>>> effectively assigns parent's fwnode (okay, of_node right now). >>>> >>>> Because gpio regmap a child node of the pin controller, which is the one probed (gpio regmap is probed from the pin controller). >>>> Therefore the parent’s fwnode is useless, since the correct gpio_chip node is the child's one (we have pin-ranges declared in the child node, referencing the parent pinctrl node). >>> >>> I see. Can you point me out to the code where we get the node and >>> where it's being retrieved / filled? >> >> Sure, this is where the child node is searched: https://github.com/Noltari/linux/blob/6d1ebb8ff26ed54592eef1fcd3b58834acb48c04/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm63xx.c#L100-L109 >> Then the gpio child node is probed and assigned here: https://github.com/Noltari/linux/blob/6d1ebb8ff26ed54592eef1fcd3b58834acb48c04/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm63xx.c#L51 > > So, this is not (*yet) in upstream, correct? No it’s not, but I've already changed the approach several times and I’m starting to get tired about it... > > So, why not to switch to fwnode API in that driver as well? > > When you do that and supply fwnode thru the regmap configuration, in > the gpio-regmap we may assign it to of_node (via to_of_node() API). > >> Basically, I based that part of the code on the ingenic pin controller: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/f69d02e37a85645aa90d18cacfff36dba370f797/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c#L2485-L2491 >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/f69d02e37a85645aa90d18cacfff36dba370f797/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ingenic%2Cpinctrl.yaml#L155-L176 > > This doesn't use remgap GPIO. Yes, I know, but there aren’t any pinctrl drivers using regmap GPIO right now, so I couldn’t base my code on anything else :) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko Best regards, Álvaro.
