Re: [PATCH 3/3] [v6] pinctrl: qcom: qdf2xxx: add support for new ACPI HID QCOM8002

[Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/20, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 12/20/2017 02:15 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >Here's the patch. I get a hang when dumping debugfs, but at least
> >sysfs expose fails when trying to request blocked gpios. I need
> >to check if we need to say "yes" to pins that are above the gpio
> >max for pinctrl. I'll do that tomorrow.
> 
> Sorry, I just don't see how this is better than my patches.  I don't
> understand the need for involving the IRQ valid mask.  I also don't
> see the value in adding code to look for a property that exists only
> in one ACPI HID (QCOM8002) as if it were generic.  The "num-gpios"
> and "gpios" DSDs are not supposed to exist in any other HID, so
> there should be no code that reads it in pinctrl-msm.

I don't see how it hurts to treat it generically. Presumably
that's the way it will be done on ACPI platforms going forward?
No need to tie it to some ACPI HID.

I'm trying to resolve everything at once: gpios, pinctrl pins,
and irqs exposed by the TLMM hardware. The value is that we solve
it all, once, now. The DT binding can also be resolved at the
same time, so when we need to express this in DT it's already
done. Otherwise, something can request irqs from the irqdomain
even if the irq can't be enabled, or it can try to mux the pin to
some other function, even if the function selection can't be
configured.

Boiling everything down into the irq valid mask should cover all
these cases, and not require us to strip const from all the data
in the non-ACPI pinctrl drivers to replace the value in the npins
field at runtime.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html