On 23-06-01, Jules Maselbas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 04:32:09PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 04:25:06PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > This reverts commit 3641d381e63321016e3bf09504852a6b2a2f879b. > > > > > > Since the of_xlate support the gpio-hog support is broken because the > > > 'gpio' property used to specify the gpio-hog pin does not contain any > > > phandle. Due to the fact that of_xlate was never implemented the easiest > > > way to fix the gpio-hog functionality is to revert the commit. > > > > 3641d381e63321016e3bf09504852a6b2a2f879b was introduced for sunxi. As > > Jules is currently working on sunxi support this is likely needed soon, > > so what's the second easiest way? > I am not very familiar with the gpio-hog concept, what I understand is: > > "gpio-hog" are a description of gpios config to be initialized early on. > The main difference with classic gpio is the omission of the phandle of > the gpio controller (since gpio-hog are expected to be a child node of > gpio controller). Correct me if I am wrong. Correct hogs are used if you have a static gpio e.g. a power-switch which is never turned off. > In this case the current version of of_hog_gpio fails since it calls > of_parse_phandle_with_args which expect the gpio to start with the controller > phandle. Correct. > My best guess would be to rework of_hog_gpio to not use of_parse_phandle_with_args > and probably not gpio_of_xlate This would be a partly revert of your commit. > This sounds easier than a sync of barebox gpio code with linux. You don't need to sync the complete code, let me check if I can prepare a patch which adds the of_xlate support and is a bit more in sync with the kernel. If this is not possible I go with the partly revert. Regards, Marco
