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 12/20/17 6:39 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >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.
> 
> But it is tied to a HID.  The "num-gpios" and "gpios" properties
> belong to a specific HID.  Someone could create a new HID with
> different properties, and then what?  That's why I want all the ACPI
> stuff in the client driver.
> 
> At this point I don't really care any more about what the patches
> look like, but I really do think that putting the ACPI code in
> pinctrl-msm is a bad idea.
> 
> We're debating adding support for multiple TLMMs, and we may create
> a new HID for that, so that we can define all pins on all TLMMs in
> one device.  We would need to create a new HID and new DSDs to go
> with it.

Ok. That's testable with acpi_match_device_ids() though. I can
add that into pinctrl-msm.c so we don't have to pass info about
available gpios from ACPI specific driver into the pinctrl-msm
core driver. That's why I'm trying to avoid doing it in the ACPI
specific driver. Do it close to where the gpiochip is created
instead.

Maybe future HIDs could follow the DT design and then we can look
for the same device property name in both firmwares. Parsing
ranges is simpler.

> 
> >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.
> 
> Keep in mind that I am now in vacation, and so I won't be able to
> submit any more patches for a while.
> 
> >The DT binding can also be resolved at the
> >same time, so when we need to express this in DT it's already
> >done.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Is it possible to request an IRQ for a pin if the pin itself can't
> be requested?

I don't see any place blocking GPIOs turning into IRQs once we
setup the irqdomain with interrupts. Maybe I missed something,
but I think you can request an IRQ once the domain has the hwirqs
associated with it. I will test it out.

-- 
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