Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: add support for pinctrl for recovery

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/17/23 17:27, Yann Sionneau wrote:
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.

Fair enough, dev_dbg() is justified when it makes developer's life easier :-)



[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux