On 10/4/23 1:33 PM, Dipen Patel wrote: > On 10/4/23 1:30 PM, Dipen Patel wrote: >> On 10/4/23 5:00 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:28 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:53 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Using struct gpio_chip is not safe as it will disappear if the >>>>> underlying driver is unbound for any reason. Switch to using reference >>>>> counted struct gpio_device and its dedicated accessors. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> As Andy points out add <linux/cleanup.h>, with that fixed: >>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> I think this can be merged into the gpio tree after leaving some >>>> slack for the HTE maintainer to look at it, things look so much >>>> better after this. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Linus Walleij >>> >>> Dipen, >>> >>> if you could give this patch a test and possibly ack it for me to take >>> it through the GPIO tree (or go the immutable tag from HTE route) then >>> it would be great. This is the last user of gpiochip_find() treewide, >>> so with it we could remove it entirely for v6.7. >> >> Progress so far for the RFT... >> >> I tried applying the patch series on 6.6-rc1 and it did not apply cleanly, >> some patches I needed to manually apply and correct. With all this, it failed >> compilation at some spi/spi-bcm2835 driver. I disabled that and was able to >> compile. I thought I should let you know this part. >> >> Now, I tried to test the hte and it seems to fail finding the gpio device, >> roughly around this place [1]. I thought it would be your patch series so >> tried to just use 6.6rc1 without your patches and it still failed at the >> same place. I have to trace back now from which kernel version it broke. > > [1]. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pateldipen1984/linux.git/tree/drivers/hte/hte-tegra194.c?h=for-next#n781 > > of course with your patches it would fail for the gdev instead of the chip. Small update: I put some debugging prints in the gpio match function in the hte-tegra194.c as below: static int tegra_gpiochip_match(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data) { + struct device_node *node = data; + struct fwnode_handle *fw = of_node_to_fwnode(data); + if (!fw || !chip->fwnode) + pr_err("dipen patel: fw is null\n"); - pr_err("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__); + pr_err("dipen patel, %s:%d: %s, %s, %s, match?:%d, fwnode name:%s\n", __func__, __LINE__, chip->label, node->name, node->full_name, (chip->fwnode == fw), fw->dev->init_name); return chip->fwnode == of_node_to_fwnode(data); } The output of the printfs looks like below: [ 3.955194] dipen patel: fw is null -----> this message started appearing when I added !chip->fwnode test in the if condition line. [ 3.958864] dipen patel, tegra_gpiochip_match:689: tegra234-gpio, gpio, gpio@c2f0000, match?:0, fwnode name:(null) I conclude that chip->fwnode is empty. Any idea in which conditions that node would be empty? >> >>> >>> Bart >> >
