Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: add GPO driver for PCA9570
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200625075805.363918-1-mans0n@gorani.run>
 <CAMpxmJXDHX-U-HWR8093orBU1ZxEeWp_r2Xar+k5FMoZ1pS78Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdNh8nFNqZxSD0g7ADD8GvY+Dmbfg8xc6LW94hw_Brwew@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sungbo Eo <mans0n@gorani.run>
Message-ID: <c7fd2365-0f47-b2c8-4085-020928c79254@gorani.run>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 01:11:16 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdNh8nFNqZxSD0g7ADD8GvY+Dmbfg8xc6LW94hw_Brwew@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for all the reviews! I've updated the patch, please have a look.

And I have something to ask.

# echo 1 > gpio408/value
# cat gpio408/value
cat: read error: I/O error
# cat gpio408/direction
out
# echo out > gpio408/direction
# echo in > gpio408/direction
[   91.006691] gpio-408 (sysfs): gpiod_direction_input: missing get() 
but have direction_input()
ash: write error: I/O error

I've never dealt with GPO expander before, so this seems a bit odd to me.
Is it perfectly okay to leave get() and direction_input() unimplemented?

Thanks.

On 2020-06-30 18:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:28 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:58 AM Sungbo Eo <mans0n@gorani.run> wrote:
> 
>>> +static const struct of_device_id pca9570_of_match_table[] = {
>>> +       { .compatible = "nxp,pca9570" },
>>> +       { /* sentinel */ }
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pca9570_of_match_table);
>>
>> If you're not using it in probe than maybe move it next to the I2C device table?
> 
> (Side note)
> ...and even if so it can be assessed via a struct device pointer:
> dev->driver->id_table (don't remember by heart, but you have an idea).
>