On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:28 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:15:35AM +0200, Hawa, Hanna wrote: > > On 12/14/2022 6:09 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > > > + if (dev->dev->pins && dev->dev->pins->p) > > > > + rinfo->pinctrl = dev->dev->pins->p; > > > Hmm... I don't see how this field is being used. > > > Can you elaborate? > > > > This field is used in i2c_generic_scl_recovery(), if it's not NULL then the > > flow will set the state to GPIO before running the recovery mechanism. > > if (bri->pinctrl) > > pinctrl_select_state(bri->pinctrl, bri->pins_gpio); > > OK, but why that function doesn't use the dev->pins->p if it's defined? > (As a fallback when rinfo->pinctrl is NULL.) I don't understand the context of these things so can't say much about it. > > I saw that that the change failed in complication for SPARC architecture, as > > the pins field is wraparound with CONFIG_PINCTRL in device struct. I though > > on two options to solve the compilation error, first by adding wraparound of > > CONFIG_PINCTRL when accessing the pins field. And the second option is to > > add get function in pinctrl/devinfo.h file, which return the pins field, or > > NULL in case the PINCTRL is not defined. Which option you think we can go > > with? > > Getter with a stub sounds better to me, so you won't access some device core > fields. > > Linus, what do you think about all these (including previous paragraph)? A getter may be a good solution, it depends, it can also be pushed somewhere local in the designware i2c driver can it not? I am thinking that the rest of the code that is using that field is certainly not going to work without pinctrl either. Yours, Linus Walleij
