Hi
Le 17/08/2023 à 10:07, Jarkko Nikula a écrit :
Hi
On 8/16/23 12:50, Yann Sionneau wrote:
From: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@xxxxxxxxx>
Currently if the SoC needs pinctrl to switch the SCL and SDA
from the I2C function to GPIO function, the recovery won't work.
scl-gpio = <>;
sda-gpio = <>;
Are not enough for some SoCs to have a working recovery.
Some need:
scl-gpio = <>;
sda-gpio = <>;
pinctrl-names = "default", "recovery";
pinctrl-0 = <&i2c_pins_hw>;
pinctrl-1 = <&i2c_pins_gpio>;
The driver was not filling rinfo->pinctrl with the device node
pinctrl data which is needed by generic recovery code.
Tested-by: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by from author is needless. Expectation is that author has
tested the patch while not always true :-)
Ok, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that I have the device and I
tested the change with the device. Ack!
@@ -905,6 +906,15 @@ static int i2c_dw_init_recovery_info(struct
dw_i2c_dev *dev)
return PTR_ERR(gpio);
rinfo->sda_gpiod = gpio;
+ rinfo->pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(dev->dev);
+ if (IS_ERR(rinfo->pinctrl)) {
+ if (PTR_ERR(rinfo->pinctrl) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ return PTR_ERR(rinfo->pinctrl);
+
+ rinfo->pinctrl = NULL;
+ dev_info(dev->dev, "can't get pinctrl, bus recovery might
not work\n");
I think dev_dbg() suits better here or is it needed at all? End user
may not be able to do anything when sees this in dmesg. I.e. more like
development time dev_dbg() information.
I agree dev_dbg() is a better idea.
Does i2c-core-base.c: i2c_gpio_init_pinctrl_recovery() already do
dev_info() print when pinctrl & GPIO are set properly making above
also kind of needless?
Thanks for the review. In fact I had to use gdb to understand why the
recovery was not working. Because as you said, it only prints something
to say "everything looks ok!".
I kind of prefer when it prints when something goes wrong.
But I let you decide what you think is the best.
--
Yann
