This series attempts to add support for software nodes to gpiolib, using
software node references that were introduced recently. This allows us
to convert more drivers to the generic device properties and drop
support for custom platform data:
static const struct software_node gpio_bank_b_node = {
|-------.name = "B",
};
static const struct property_entry simone_key_enter_props[] = {
|-------PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("linux,code", KEY_ENTER),
|-------PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("label", "enter"),
|-------PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF("gpios", &gpio_bank_b_node, 123, GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW),
|-------{ }
};
If we agree in principle, I would like to have the very first 3 patches
in an immutable branch off maybe -rc8 so that it can be pulled into
individual subsystems so that patches switching various drivers to
fwnode_gpiod_get_index() could be applied.
Thanks,
Dmitry
Dmitry Torokhov (11):
gpiolib: of: add a fallback for wlf,reset GPIO name
gpiolib: introduce devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
gpiolib: introduce fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
net: phylink: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
net: mdio: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
drm/bridge: ti-tfp410: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
gpliolib: make fwnode_get_named_gpiod() static
gpiolib: of: tease apart of_find_gpio()
gpiolib: of: tease apart acpi_find_gpio()
gpiolib: consolidate fwnode GPIO lookups
gpiolib: add support for software nodes
drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 153 ++++++++++++++----------
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h | 21 ++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-devres.c | 33 ++----
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 159 ++++++++++++++-----------
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.h | 26 ++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c | 92 +++++++++++++++
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.h | 13 ++
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 184 ++++++++++++++++-------------
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c | 4 +-
drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c | 4 +-
drivers/net/phy/phylink.c | 4 +-
include/linux/gpio/consumer.h | 53 ++++++---
13 files changed, 471 insertions(+), 276 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c
create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.h
--
2.23.0.162.g0b9fbb3734-goog
Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
works with arbitrary firmware node.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c
index 61cc2354ef1b..d9c9c9ebad2b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c
@@ -284,8 +284,8 @@ static int tfp410_get_connector_properties(struct tfp410 *dvi)
else
dvi->connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DVID;
- dvi->hpd = fwnode_get_named_gpiod(&connector_node->fwnode,
- "hpd-gpios", 0, GPIOD_IN, "hpd");
+ dvi->hpd = fwnode_gpiod_get_index(&connector_node->fwnode,
+ "hpd", 0, GPIOD_IN, "hpd");
if (IS_ERR(dvi->hpd)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(dvi->hpd);
dvi->hpd = NULL;
--
2.23.0.162.g0b9fbb3734-goog
Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
works with arbitrary firmware node.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c b/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
index ce940871331e..9ca51d678123 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
@@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ static int mdiobus_register_gpiod(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
/* Deassert the optional reset signal */
if (mdiodev->dev.of_node)
- gpiod = fwnode_get_named_gpiod(&mdiodev->dev.of_node->fwnode,
- "reset-gpios", 0, GPIOD_OUT_LOW,
+ gpiod = fwnode_gpiod_get_index(&mdiodev->dev.of_node->fwnode,
+ "reset", 0, GPIOD_OUT_LOW,
"PHY reset");
if (IS_ERR(gpiod)) {
if (PTR_ERR(gpiod) == -ENOENT || PTR_ERR(gpiod) == -ENOSYS)
--
2.23.0.162.g0b9fbb3734-goog
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:04AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> This series attempts to add support for software nodes to gpiolib, using
> software node references that were introduced recently. This allows us
> to convert more drivers to the generic device properties and drop
> support for custom platform data:
>
> static const struct software_node gpio_bank_b_node = {
> |-------.name = "B",
> };
>
> static const struct property_entry simone_key_enter_props[] = {
> |-------PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("linux,code", KEY_ENTER),
> |-------PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("label", "enter"),
> |-------PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF("gpios", &gpio_bank_b_node, 123, GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW),
> |-------{ }
> };
>
> If we agree in principle, I would like to have the very first 3 patches
> in an immutable branch off maybe -rc8 so that it can be pulled into
> individual subsystems so that patches switching various drivers to
> fwnode_gpiod_get_index() could be applied.
FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
for patches 1-8 after addressing minor issues.
I'll review the rest later on.
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
>
> Dmitry Torokhov (11):
> gpiolib: of: add a fallback for wlf,reset GPIO name
> gpiolib: introduce devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
> gpiolib: introduce fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
> net: phylink: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
> net: mdio: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
> drm/bridge: ti-tfp410: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
> gpliolib: make fwnode_get_named_gpiod() static
> gpiolib: of: tease apart of_find_gpio()
> gpiolib: of: tease apart acpi_find_gpio()
> gpiolib: consolidate fwnode GPIO lookups
> gpiolib: add support for software nodes
>
> drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 153 ++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h | 21 ++--
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-devres.c | 33 ++----
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 159 ++++++++++++++-----------
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.h | 26 ++--
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c | 92 +++++++++++++++
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.h | 13 ++
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 184 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c | 4 +-
> drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c | 4 +-
> drivers/net/phy/phylink.c | 4 +-
> include/linux/gpio/consumer.h | 53 ++++++---
> 13 files changed, 471 insertions(+), 276 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.h
>
> --
> 2.23.0.162.g0b9fbb3734-goog
>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
> If we agree in principle, I would like to have the very first 3 patches
> in an immutable branch off maybe -rc8 so that it can be pulled into
> individual subsystems so that patches switching various drivers to
> fwnode_gpiod_get_index() could be applied.
I think it seems a bit enthusiastic to have non-GPIO subsystems
pick up these changes this close to the merge window so my plan
is to merge patches 1.2.3 (1 already merged) and then you could
massage the other subsystems in v5.4-rc1.
But if other subsystems say "hey we want do fix this in like 3 days"
then I'm game for an immutable branch as well.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:55:47AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If we agree in principle, I would like to have the very first 3 patches
> > in an immutable branch off maybe -rc8 so that it can be pulled into
> > individual subsystems so that patches switching various drivers to
> > fwnode_gpiod_get_index() could be applied.
>
> I think it seems a bit enthusiastic to have non-GPIO subsystems
> pick up these changes this close to the merge window so my plan
> is to merge patches 1.2.3 (1 already merged) and then you could
> massage the other subsystems in v5.4-rc1.
>
> But if other subsystems say "hey we want do fix this in like 3 days"
> then I'm game for an immutable branch as well.
No, if it is still has a chance for -rc1 then I'm good. I was thinking
if it does not go into -rc1 I could convince some of them merge a
targeted immutable branch off -rc8 or 5.3 final and then apply patches
relevant to their subsystems so we do not have to wait till 5.6 to land
everything.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Hi Dmitry,
(CC'ing Heikki as the original author of software nodes support)
Thank you for the patch.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:10AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
s/bit/but/
> works with arbitrary firmware node.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
On a side note, as I'm not very familiar with software nodes, I tried to
see how they are to be used, and it seems they are completely
undocumented :-( Heikki, is this something that could be fixed ?
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c
> index 61cc2354ef1b..d9c9c9ebad2b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-tfp410.c
> @@ -284,8 +284,8 @@ static int tfp410_get_connector_properties(struct tfp410 *dvi)
> else
> dvi->connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DVID;
>
> - dvi->hpd = fwnode_get_named_gpiod(&connector_node->fwnode,
> - "hpd-gpios", 0, GPIOD_IN, "hpd");
> + dvi->hpd = fwnode_gpiod_get_index(&connector_node->fwnode,
> + "hpd", 0, GPIOD_IN, "hpd");
> if (IS_ERR(dvi->hpd)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(dvi->hpd);
> dvi->hpd = NULL;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Hi Heikki,
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 06:03:33PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 02:12:28AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > (CC'ing Heikki as the original author of software nodes support)
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:10AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
> >
> > s/bit/but/
> >
> > > works with arbitrary firmware node.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
> >
> > On a side note, as I'm not very familiar with software nodes, I tried to
> > see how they are to be used, and it seems they are completely
> > undocumented :-( Heikki, is this something that could be fixed ?
>
> OK. I'll start writing API documentation for it.
That's great, thanks ! I'll do my best to review it if you CC me.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 02:12:28AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> (CC'ing Heikki as the original author of software nodes support)
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:10AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
>
> s/bit/but/
>
> > works with arbitrary firmware node.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
>
> On a side note, as I'm not very familiar with software nodes, I tried to
> see how they are to be used, and it seems they are completely
> undocumented :-( Heikki, is this something that could be fixed ?
OK. I'll start writing API documentation for it.
thanks,
--
heikki
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 05:22:07PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:55:47AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > If we agree in principle, I would like to have the very first 3 patches
> > > in an immutable branch off maybe -rc8 so that it can be pulled into
> > > individual subsystems so that patches switching various drivers to
> > > fwnode_gpiod_get_index() could be applied.
> >
> > I think it seems a bit enthusiastic to have non-GPIO subsystems
> > pick up these changes this close to the merge window so my plan
> > is to merge patches 1.2.3 (1 already merged) and then you could
> > massage the other subsystems in v5.4-rc1.
> >
> > But if other subsystems say "hey we want do fix this in like 3 days"
> > then I'm game for an immutable branch as well.
>
> No, if it is still has a chance for -rc1 then I'm good. I was thinking
> if it does not go into -rc1 I could convince some of them merge a
> targeted immutable branch off -rc8 or 5.3 final and then apply patches
> relevant to their subsystems so we do not have to wait till 5.6 to land
> everything.
So I guess we missed -rc1. Any chance we could get an immutable branch
off -rc1 that you will pull into your main branch and I hopefully can
persuade other maintainers to pull as well so we do not need to drag it
over 2+ merge windows?
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:45 AM Dmitry Torokhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So I guess we missed -rc1. Any chance we could get an immutable branch
> off -rc1 that you will pull into your main branch and I hopefully can
> persuade other maintainers to pull as well so we do not need to drag it
> over 2+ merge windows?
Yes I'm sorry. I was swamped with stabilizing the kernel.
I made an immutable branch and tried to use zeroday for testing
but it timed out so I folded it in for-next anyways after som basic
tests.
Yours,
Linus Walleij