Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758183AbaJaQW4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:22:56 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:52531 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752869AbaJaQWy (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:22:54 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="409174634" Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:23:39 -0700 From: David Cohen To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Linus Walleij , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: baytrail: show output gpio state correctly on Intel Baytrail Message-ID: <20141031162339.GA7136@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> References: <1412355319-18946-1-git-send-email-david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> <1413224639-21552-1-git-send-email-david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> <20141013191405.GB29810@saruman> <20141013192404.GB4034@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> <20141013192632.GC29810@saruman> <20141013193618.GD29810@saruman> <20141028144249.GD8123@saruman> <20141031132005.GB1273@saruman> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141031132005.GB1273@saruman> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:12:16AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:15:20AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > >> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:26:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > >> > > >> > I also noticed that this is missing: > > >> > > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > >> > index e12e5b0..7db5ab9 100644 > > >> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > >> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > >> > @@ -614,3 +614,9 @@ static int __init byt_gpio_init(void) > > >> > } > > >> > > > >> > subsys_initcall(byt_gpio_init); > > >> > + > > >> > +static void __exit byt_gpio_exit(void) > > >> > +{ > > >> > + platform_driver_unregister(&byt_gpio_driver); > > >> > +} > > >> > +module_exit(byt_gpio_exit); > > >> > > >> But the Baytrail driver is not a loadable module, it is bool: > > >> > > >> config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL > > >> bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control" > > >> depends on GPIOLIB && ACPI && X86 > > >> > > >> (...) > > >> > > >> So I guess it won't need handling for removal, as it can only > > >> be compiled-in. > > > > > > you can still unbind it through sysfs, right ? The thing also already > > > provides a ->remove() method anyway. > > > > Yes you're right of course... > > > > But another way to get rid of the dilemma is to set > > .suppress_bind_attrs = true on the .driver field of the > > device driver. The one can't unbind it through sysfs anymore. > > > > .driver = { > > .name = "foo", > > .suppress_bind_attrs = true, > > }, > > > > So one of them need to be done. > > > > I suspect this is a kind of common problem... > > so instead of taking of taking a three-liner which just makes sure this > can be used as "intended" you prefer to: > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > index e12e5b0..254ba81 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > @@ -587,16 +587,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id byt_gpio_acpi_match[] = { > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, byt_gpio_acpi_match); > > -static int byt_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > -{ > - struct byt_gpio *vg = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > - > - pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > - gpiochip_remove(&vg->chip); > - > - return 0; > -} > - > static struct platform_driver byt_gpio_driver = { > .probe = byt_gpio_probe, > .remove = byt_gpio_remove, > @@ -605,6 +595,7 @@ static struct platform_driver byt_gpio_driver = { > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > .pm = &byt_gpio_pm_ops, > .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(byt_gpio_acpi_match), > + .suppress_bind_attrs = true, > }, > }; > > > I don't quite care since this is not an architecture I work for, but I > prefer drivers which can be unbound one way or another. Not to mention > that there's already a ->remove callback on the platform_driver anyway. I think adding the module exit + allowing this driver to be a module would be a good approach. Then we don't need to force generic x86 kernel binaries to always have this driver. Unless Mathias or Mika knows a constraint to force this driver to be builtin only. Br, David > > -- > balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/