Am Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:29:35 +0000 schrieb Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 10:49 PM Henning Schild > > <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:02:40 +0000 > > > schrieb Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > On Fri, 07 Oct 2022, Henning Schild wrote: > > > > > > > If we register a "leds-gpio" platform device for GPIO pins > > > > > that do not exist we get a -EPROBE_DEFER and the probe will > > > > > be tried again later. If there is no driver to provide that > > > > > pin we will poll forever and also create a lot of log > > > > > messages. > > > > > > > > > > So check if that GPIO driver is configured, if so it will > > > > > come up eventually. If not, we exit our probe function early > > > > > and do not even bother registering the "leds-gpio". This > > > > > method was chosen over "Kconfig depends" since this way we > > > > > can add support for more devices and GPIO backends more > > > > > easily without "depends":ing on all GPIO backends. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: a6c80bec3c93 ("leds: simatic-ipc-leds-gpio: Add GPIO > > > > > version of Siemens driver") Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko > > > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Henning Schild > > > > > <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- > > > > > drivers/leds/simple/simatic-ipc-leds-gpio.c | 2 ++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > FYI: I'm going to try my best not to take another one like > > > > this. > > > > > > understood! > > > > > > > Please try to improve the whole situation for you next > > > > submission. > > > > > > When i have to touch this again, which i will, i will propose > > > either "depend on all possible GPIO drivers" or introduce "#ifdef > > > CONFIG"s. Caring most about big configs as seen in distros like > > > debian, even for embedded systems ... i think i would prefer the > > > first option, as it will also be easier to maintain. > > > > > > I do not see the whole infinite loop story on my plate, but if > > > that got fixed i would follow up taking the fix into account. > > I still don't really know what you mean by this. Probe deferring > should not work this way. Do you know why the loop is infinite on > your platform? What keeps triggering the re-probe? Are you > continually binding and unbinding drivers, forever? Also, what is > printing out the failure? Maybe it should be silent? It has been a while and i would have to reproduce this. But basically what happened is that i registered a leds-gpio platform device with a lookup table, no errors returned and my "driver" would be done and leds-gpio takes over. All GPIO_LOOKUP_IDXs point to not yet exisiting pins, potentially never existing when the providing driver never comes up. Now leds-gpio internally tries again and again with a high frequency (busy?) and printing stuff (would have to try again to see what). I think one could modifiy any other leds-gpio and totally invalidate the lookup table by introducing typos in the chip name of each entry. But i will rty again and get back with a better description. Maybe the bug was fixed in the meantime or i am doing something wrong when registering that platform-device. Henning > > AFAICS another possible (not sure if it's preferable) solution is to > > split this driver to subdrivers and each of them will be dependent > > on the corresponding pin control in Kconfig. It will satisfy both > > of your requirements, right? Something like > > > > simatic-leds-core.c > > simatic-leds-127e.c (config ..._127E depends on PINCTRL_BROXTON) > > In theory, yes it would. You could also introduce a core driver to > contain all of the shared code. Duplication would also be a travesty. >