On 10/4/23 3:54 PM, Dipen Patel wrote: > 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? sorry for spamming, one last message before I sign off for the day.... Seems, adding below in the tegra gpio driver resolved the issue I am facing, I was able to verify your patch series. diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c index d87dd06db40d..a56c159d7136 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra186.c @@ -989,6 +989,8 @@ static int tegra186_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) offset += port->pins; } + gpio->gpio.fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(pdev->dev.of_node); + return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &gpio->gpio, gpio); } Now, few follow up questions: 1) is this the correct way of setting the chip fwnode in the gpio driver? 2) Or should I use something else in hte matching function instead of fwnode so to avoid adding above line in the gpio driver? > >>> >>>> >>>> Bart >>> >> >
