Hi Rob,
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When an OF node has a pin range for its GPIOs, return -EPROBE_DEFER if
>> the pin controller isn't available.
>>
>> Otherwise, the GPIO range wouldn't be set at all unless the pin
>> controller probed always before the GPIO chip.
>>
>> With this change, the probe of the GPIO chip will be deferred and will
>> be retried at a later point, hopefully once the pin controller has been
>> registered and probed already.
>
> This will break cases where the pinctrl driver does not exist, but the
> DT contains pinctrl bindings. We can have similar problems already
> with clocks though. However, IMO this problem is a bit different in
> that pinctrl is more likely entirely optional while clocks are often
> required. You may do all pin setup in bootloader/firmware on some
> boards and not others. Of course then why put pinctrl in the DT in
> that case? They could be present just due to how chip vs. board dts
> files are structured.
Isn't that already the case?
If I change the compatible value of a pinctrl node to an invalid value, I get:
sh-sci e6c50000.serial: could not find pctldev for node
/pfc@e6050000/serial1, deferring probe
> We could address this by simply marking the pin controller node
> disabled. However, ...
Doesn't seem to make any difference.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
