On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I guess so. >> We could address this by simply marking the pin controller node >> disabled. However, ... > > Doesn't seem to make any difference. No doubt. I'm proposing that it should, not that it does already. Of course, the callers will also have to test for -ENODEV and ignore those errors. Rob -- 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
