On 10/5/23 12:05 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:12 PM Dipen Patel <dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/5/23 6:48 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 1:52 AM Dipen Patel <dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/4/23 3:54 PM, Dipen Patel wrote: >>>>> On 10/4/23 1:33 PM, Dipen Patel wrote: >>>>>> On 10/4/23 1:30 PM, Dipen Patel wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/4/23 5:00 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:28 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:53 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Using struct gpio_chip is not safe as it will disappear if the >>>>>>>>>> underlying driver is unbound for any reason. Switch to using reference >>>>>>>>>> counted struct gpio_device and its dedicated accessors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Andy points out add <linux/cleanup.h>, with that fixed: >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this can be merged into the gpio tree after leaving some >>>>>>>>> slack for the HTE maintainer to look at it, things look so much >>>>>>>>> better after this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>>> Linus Walleij >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dipen, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if you could give this patch a test and possibly ack it for me to take >>>>>>>> it through the GPIO tree (or go the immutable tag from HTE route) then >>>>>>>> it would be great. This is the last user of gpiochip_find() treewide, >>>>>>>> so with it we could remove it entirely for v6.7. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Progress so far for the RFT... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried applying the patch series on 6.6-rc1 and it did not apply cleanly, >>>>>>> some patches I needed to manually apply and correct. With all this, it failed >>>>>>> compilation at some spi/spi-bcm2835 driver. I disabled that and was able to >>>>>>> compile. I thought I should let you know this part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, I tried to test the hte and it seems to fail finding the gpio device, >>>>>>> roughly around this place [1]. I thought it would be your patch series so >>>>>>> tried to just use 6.6rc1 without your patches and it still failed at the >>>>>>> same place. I have to trace back now from which kernel version it broke. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]. >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pateldipen1984/linux.git/tree/drivers/hte/hte-tegra194.c?h=for-next#n781 >>>>>> >>>>>> of course with your patches it would fail for the gdev instead of the chip. >>>>> >>>>> Small update: >>>>> >>>>> I put some debugging prints in the gpio match function in the hte-tegra194.c as >>>>> below: >>>>> >>>>> static int tegra_gpiochip_match(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data) >>>>> { >>>>> + struct device_node *node = data; >>>>> + struct fwnode_handle *fw = of_node_to_fwnode(data); >>>>> + if (!fw || !chip->fwnode) >>>>> + pr_err("dipen patel: fw is null\n"); >>>>> >>>>> - pr_err("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__); >>>>> + pr_err("dipen patel, %s:%d: %s, %s, %s, match?:%d, fwnode name:%s\n", >>>>> __func__, __LINE__, chip->label, node->name, node->full_name, (chip->fwnode == >>>>> fw), fw->dev->init_name); >>>>> return chip->fwnode == of_node_to_fwnode(data); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> The output of the printfs looks like below: >>>>> [ 3.955194] dipen patel: fw is null -----> this message started appearing >>>>> when I added !chip->fwnode test in the if condition line. >>>>> >>>>> [ 3.958864] dipen patel, tegra_gpiochip_match:689: tegra234-gpio, gpio, >>>>> gpio@c2f0000, match?:0, fwnode name:(null) >>>>> >>>>> I conclude that chip->fwnode is empty. Any idea in which conditions that node >>>>> would be empty? >>>> >>>> sorry for spamming, one last message before I sign off for the day.... >>>> >>>> Seems, adding below in the tegra gpio driver resolved the issue I am facing, I >>>> was able to verify your patch series. >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c >>>> index d87dd06db40d..a56c159d7136 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c >>>> @@ -989,6 +989,8 @@ static int tegra186_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> offset += port->pins; >>>> } >>>> >>>> + gpio->gpio.fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(pdev->dev.of_node); >>>> + >>>> return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &gpio->gpio, gpio); >>>> } >>>> >>>> Now, few follow up questions: >>>> 1) is this the correct way of setting the chip fwnode in the gpio driver? >>> >>> You shouldn't need this. This driver already does: >>> >>> gpio->gpio.parent = &pdev->dev; >>> >>> so fwnode should be assigned in gpiochip_add_data_with_key(). Can you >>> check why this doesn't happen? >> >> I do not see anywhere chip->fwnode being set in the gpiochip_add_* function. >> The only reference I see is here [1]. Does it mean I need to change my match >> function from: >> >> chip->fwnode == of_node_to_fwnode(data) >> >> to: >> dev_fwnode(chip->parent) == of_node_to_fwnode(data)? > > No! chip->fwnode is only used to let GPIOLIB know which fwnode to > assign to the GPIO device (struct gpio_device). What do you suggest I should use for the match as I do not see chip->fwnode being set? > > Bart > >> >> [1]: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c?h=v6.6-rc1#n767 >> >>> >>> Bart >>> >>>> 2) Or should I use something else in hte matching function instead of fwnode so >>>> to avoid adding above line in the gpio driver? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bart >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
