On Di, 2024-01-09 at 11:59 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/01/2024 13:17, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > On Fr, 2024-01-05 at 16:59 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Is that true? > > It should be true and my tests confirmed it. > > The code below looks like overwrites of_phandle_args so > > that only one reset-gpio device is spawned for each gpio node. > > The code will iterate over list of of_node and of_phandle_args and > compare them with __reset_gpios_args_match(). If all match: do not > create new platform device. > > If they do not match, e.g. ACTIVE_LOW -> ACTIVE_HIGH, create new > platform device. This will be the second device for the same GPIO. > Probing of that device in reset-gpio driver will fail: > > [ 19.198775] reset-gpio reset-gpio.2.auto: error -EBUSY: Could not get > reset gpios > > because GPIO is used by reset-gpio.1.auto already. Thank you for the clarification. I only understood later in the mail and didn't update this properly. > > > + /* Not freed in normal path, persisent subsyst data */ > > > + rgpio_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*rgpio_dev), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > Since this is persistent, instead of letting the reset-gpio driver call > > of_parse_phandle_with_args() again, this could be passed in via > > platform data. Is there a reason not to do that instead? > > We can pass it as read only platform data, but we cannot pass the > ownership. This is associated with registered platform device, not with > bound one device->driver. > > Imagine case: > 1. modprobe reset-gpio, > 2. Driver is bound to the device, > 3. unbind (echo > unbind) > 4. rmmod > 5. goto 1 Keeping ownership on the list is fine, the reset-gpio driver makes its own copy of of_phandle_args anyway. I was just wondering whether it could make this copy from platform data instead of from the of_parse_phandle_with_args() return value. [...] > > > > > @@ -839,21 +960,50 @@ __of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node, const char *id, int index, > > > index, &args); > > > if (ret == -EINVAL) > > > return ERR_PTR(ret); > > > - if (ret) > > > - return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(ret); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + /* > > > + * There can be only one reset-gpio for regular devices, so > > > + * don't bother with GPIO index. > > > + */ > > > > I don't understand this comment. The GPIO index should be checked as > > part of __reset_gpios_args_match(), or should it not? > > This and earlier comment are result of a bit hacky approach to the > problem: how to find reset controllers for that GPIO? > > The point is that our reset gpio controller has only 1 reset, thus > of_reset_n_cells=1. However args_count from of_parse_handle is >0, which > later is compared in reset core: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/reset/core.c#L859 > > That part we need to match. > > I could make the reset-gpio driver to have of_reset_n_cells=2, but what > would be the point? The rest of the cells are not really relevant, > because you cannot refer to this reset gpio controller with any other > arguments. > > To remind: my solution spawns one reset-gpio controller for one GPIO. Thank you. I think we could also just make that check if (WARN_ON(!rcdev->of_args && ...)) instead and skip the of_xlate call in that case (or implement of_xlate in the reset-gpio driver to make this more explicit). > > > > > + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(node, "reset-gpios", "#gpio-cells", > > > + 0, &args); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(ret); > > > > > > - mutex_lock(&reset_list_mutex); > > > - rcdev = NULL; > > > - list_for_each_entry(r, &reset_controller_list, list) { > > > - if (args.np == r->of_node) { > > > - rcdev = r; > > > - break; > > > - } > > > + gpio_fallback = true; > > > > Is there a reason not just call __reset_add_reset_gpio_device() here? > > With that, there should be no need to call __reset_find_rcdev() twice. > > Hm, could be, although not sure if code would be simpler. > > This entire function handles two cases: > 1. Get normal reset controller ("resets" OF property), > 2. If above fails, get reset-gpio controller ("reset-gpios" OF property) > > Therefore the entire solution is following approach: > 1. of_parse_phandle(resets) > 1b. error? Then of_parse_phandle(reset-gpios) > 2. Find reset-controller based on any of above phandles. > 3. error? Check if we created reset-gpios platform device. If not: > create new reset-gpios platform device/ > 3b. Platform device could probe, so lookup again for reset controller or > defer probe. > > What type of flow do you propose? I propose to reorder after parsing the phandles: check/create the gpio platform device right after parsing the gpio handle. Only then lock reset_list_mutex look for the rcdev. 1. of_parse_phandle(resets) 1b. error? Then of_parse_phandle(reset-gpios) 2b. gpio? Then check if we created reset-gpios platform device. If not: create new reset-gpios platform device/, defer if probe failed 3. Lock reset_list_mutex, find reset-controller based on any of above phandles. > > > > > > } > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&reset_list_mutex); > > > + rcdev = __reset_find_rcdev(&args, gpio_fallback, NULL); > > > > This gets called with args as parsed. If there is a match, this will > > overwrite args (in the gpio_fallback case) and return NULL. > > Overwrite not complete. It will only overwrite args_count and return a > valid rcdev. > I do not see overwriting in case of returning NULL. Sorry, I meant to write "This gets called with args as parsed. If there is a match, this will overwrite args (in the gpio_fallback case) _or_ return NULL." at least at the end, when I understood the following. > > > > > + > > > if (!rcdev) { So in this non-NULL branch there was no overwriting. > > > - rstc = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > > > - goto out; > > > + if (gpio_fallback) { > > > + /* > > > + * Registering reset-gpio device might cause immediate > > > + * bind, thus taking reset_list_mutex lock via > > > + * reset_controller_register(). > > > + */ > > > + mutex_unlock(&reset_list_mutex); > > > + ret = __reset_add_reset_gpio_device(node, &args); > > > > So this will also be called with args as parsed. > > > > > + mutex_lock(&reset_list_mutex); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + rstc = ERR_PTR(ret); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + /* > > > + * Success: reset-gpio could probe immediately, so > > > + * re-check the lookup. > > > + */ > > > + rcdev = __reset_find_rcdev(&args, gpio_fallback, NULL); > > > > And this will again be called with args as parsed and overwrite args > > again.> > > > + if (!rcdev) { > > > + rstc = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + /* Success, rcdev is valid thus do not bail out */ > > > + } else { > > > + rstc = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > } > > > > So at this point args is overwritten in the gpio_fallback case. I would > > find it much clearer to just overwrite args here and make the first > > parameter to __reset_find_rcdev() const. > > I think I get your point. Overwriting happens after we store the > original of_args, but the code is indeed not intuitive. I think I can > move it further, as you suggested. Now I think we can skip the overwriting altogether and just adapt the following of_reset_n_cells check ad of_xlate call as mentioned above. regards Philipp