Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] pinctrl: stmfx: fix valid_mask init sequence | From | Amelie DELAUNAY <> | Date | Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:24:39 +0100 |
| |
On 11/7/19 10:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:14 PM Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@st.com> wrote: >> On 11/5/19 3:32 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:09 AM Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> With stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_init_valid_mask callback, gpio_valid_mask was used >>>> to initialize gpiochip valid_mask for gpiolib. But gpio_valid_mask was not >>>> yet initialized. gpio_valid_mask required gpio-ranges to be registered, >>>> this is the case after gpiochip_add_data call. But init_valid_mask >>>> callback is also called under gpiochip_add_data. gpio_valid_mask >>>> initialization cannot be moved before gpiochip_add_data because >>>> gpio-ranges are not registered. >>> >>> Sorry but this doesn't add up, look at this call graph: >>> >>> gpiochip_add_data() >>> gpiochip_add_data_with_key() >>> gpiochip_alloc_valid_mask() >>> of_gpiochip_add() >>> of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() >>> gpiochip_init_valid_mask() >>> >>> So the .initi_valid_mask() is clearly called *after* >>> of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() so this cannot be the real reason, >>> provided that the ranges come from the device tree. AFAICT that >>> is the case with the stmfx. >>> >>> Can you check and see if the problem is something else? >>> >> >> stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_init_valid_mask uses pctl->gpio_valid_mask to >> initialize gpiochip valid_mask. >> >> pctl->gpio_valid_mask is initialized in >> stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_function_enable depending on gpio ranges. >> >> stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_function_enable is called after gpiochip_add_data >> because it requires gpio ranges to be registered. >> >> So, in stmfx driver the call graph is >> >> stmfx_pinctrl_probe >> gpiochip_add_data() >> gpiochip_add_data_with_key() >> gpiochip_alloc_valid_mask() >> of_gpiochip_add() >> of_gpiochip_add_pin_range() >> gpiochip_init_valid_mask() >> stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_init_valid_mask (but pctl->gpio_valid_mask >> is not yet initialized so gpiochip valid_mask is wrong) >> stmfx_pinctrl_gpio_function_enable (pctl->gpio_valid_mask is going to >> be initialized thanks to gpio ranges) >> >> When consumer tries to take a pin (it is the case for the joystick on >> stm32mp157c-ev1), it gets the following issue: >> [ 3.347391] irq: :soc:i2c@40013000:stmfx@42:stmfx-pin-controller >> didn't like hwirq-0x0 to VIRQ92 mapping (rc=-6) >> [ 3.356418] irq: :soc:i2c@40013000:stmfx@42:stmfx-pin-controller >> didn't like hwirq-0x1 to VIRQ92 mapping (rc=-6) >> [ 3.366512] irq: :soc:i2c@40013000:stmfx@42:stmfx-pin-controller >> didn't like hwirq-0x2 to VIRQ92 mapping (rc=-6) >> [ 3.376671] irq: :soc:i2c@40013000:stmfx@42:stmfx-pin-controller >> didn't like hwirq-0x3 to VIRQ92 mapping (rc=-6) >> [ 3.387169] irq: :soc:i2c@40013000:stmfx@42:stmfx-pin-controller >> didn't like hwirq-0x4 to VIRQ92 mapping (rc=-6) >> [ 3.397065] gpio-keys joystick: Found button without gpio or irq >> [ 3.403041] gpio-keys: probe of joystick failed with error -22 >> >> I can reword the commit message to make it clearer. > > No need I understand it now, thanks for explaining! > > We need to populate the valid mask some other way if you > want to safeguard this, I don't know if the existing > gpio-reserved-ranges would work? But it feels a bit unsafe > if you actually determine this some other way. >
Before this patch, I made a "draft" version using the gpio-reserved-ranges property but then I had to use gpiochip_line_is_valid in pinconf_get/_set/_dbg_show in addition of pinctrl_find_gpio_range_from_pin... With an update of the bindings for optional property gpio-reserved-ranges. I was not really fond of this solution, it sounded redundant.
Thanks for applying the patch.
Regards, Amelie
| |