On 28/02/2022 10:01, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
Hi Arinc,
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 4:12 PM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 18:16, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
Hi Arinc,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:11 PM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 12:09, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
Hi Arinc,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:50 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Sergio,
On 15/02/2022 11:35, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
Hi Arinc,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:18 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
GB-PC1 uses some of the rgmii2 pins (22 - 33) as GPIO. Therefore, the
rgmii2 bus cannot be used on this device.
Overwrite pinctrl-0 property under the ethernet node without rgmii2_pins on
the GB-PC1 devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/gbpc1.dts | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
No issues in GB-PC1. So:
Tested-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for testing it so quickly!
I was wondering if you got pinctrl errors on the bootlog before applying
this patch series.
rgmii2 pin group is given gpio function so calling it from ethernet node
would cause this on my TP-Link RE650 v1 which also uses the rgmii2_pins
as GPIO.
[ 1.177349] rt2880-pinmux pinctrl: pin io22 already requested by
pinctrl; cannot claim for 1e100000.ethernet
[ 1.196966] rt2880-pinmux pinctrl: pin-22 (1e100000.ethernet) status -22
[ 1.210312] rt2880-pinmux pinctrl: could not request pin 22 (io22)
from group rgmii2 on device rt2880-pinmux
[ 1.230058] mtk_soc_eth 1e100000.ethernet: Error applying setting,
reverse things back
[ 1.245853] mtk_soc_eth: probe of 1e100000.ethernet failed with error -22
No, I was not getting any kind of error since when I test your last
patch series I was not experimenting any kind of regression. I don't
have any issues now also with your new patch series. Your new changes
make sense since as you have said "rgmii2" pins are requested as GPIO
but it seems are not really being requested? I don't have time to
check the datasheet now but will try to get time to see what is
happening there.
I think this must have something to do with pinctrl on newer kernels as
the TP-Link RE650 that I tested uses the OpenWrt master branch (Linux 5.10).
I think is this commit which I did according to a review after moving
the driver from staging into 'drivers/pincrtl/ralink':
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/commit/drivers/pinctrl/ralink?h=staging-next&id=8a55d64c3336fc2ffd488a37d08ceab154c7b56b
You can also check other changes from where the driver was moved:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/log/drivers/pinctrl/ralink?h=staging-next
I realised current mt7621.dtsi does not apply the functions we specify
for the pin groups on device-specific devicetrees. I believe we need to
add this like on OpenWrt's mt7621.dtsi.
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/target/linux/ramips/dts/mt7621.dtsi#L249-L253
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/tree/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/mt7621.dtsi?h=staging-testing#n153
Can you apply the patch below to see if you get the error like above?
I also put it in attachments in case of space characters replacing tab
on the mail.
Arınç
---
diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/gbpc1.dts
b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/gbpc1.dts
index 1b5175e6ccf3..e38a083811e5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/gbpc1.dts
+++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/gbpc1.dts
@@ -114,10 +114,6 @@ default_gpio: gpio {
};
};
-ðernet {
- pinctrl-0 = <&mdio_pins>, <&rgmii1_pins>;
-};
-
&switch0 {
ports {
port@0 {
diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/mt7621.dtsi
b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/mt7621.dtsi
index 4da20da243e6..8e181d6f70ae 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/mt7621.dtsi
+++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dts/mt7621.dtsi
@@ -152,6 +152,11 @@ spi0: spi@b00 {
pinctrl: pinctrl {
compatible = "ralink,rt2880-pinmux";
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&state_default>;
+
+ state_default: pinctrl0 {
+ };
This should not be in the pinctrl node. I was told to remove it when
bindings were reviewed since these properties must be in consumer
nodes [0]. See binding documentation [1]:
[0]: https://www.mail-archive.com/driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg102634.html
[1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml?h=staging-linus&id=b6821b0d9b56386d2bf14806f90ec401468c799f
I'm not sure what a consumer node would be in this context so we can
claim the pin groups with the given function under it.
Is the ethernet node a consumer node since I claim the rgmii2_pins pin
group under it for example?
Arınç
