On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 1:52 AM Dipen Patel <dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? You shouldn't need this. This driver already does: gpio->gpio.parent = &pdev->dev; so fwnode should be assigned in gpiochip_add_data_with_key(). Can you check why this doesn't happen? Bart > 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 > >>> > >> > > >
