Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:27:49 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@amazon.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com,
        jsd@semihalf.com, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dwmw@amazon.co.uk, benh@amazon.com,
        ronenk@amazon.com, talel@amazon.com, jonnyc@amazon.com,
        hanochu@amazon.com, farbere@amazon.com, itamark@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] i2c: designware: set pinctrl recovery information
 from device pinctrl
Message-ID: <Y5r2pZhe17dVBMme@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20221214142725.23881-1-hhhawa@amazon.com>
 <Y5n1U1lYbcbJ5U1k@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <efa9171f-98ac-f518-e59e-f6c4d7d3d4e6@amazon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <efa9171f-98ac-f518-e59e-f6c4d7d3d4e6@amazon.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:15:35AM +0200, Hawa, Hanna wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 6:09 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > +     if (dev->dev->pins && dev->dev->pins->p)
> > > +             rinfo->pinctrl = dev->dev->pins->p;
> > Hmm... I don't see how this field is being used.
> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> This field is used in i2c_generic_scl_recovery(), if it's not NULL then the
> flow will set the state to GPIO before running the recovery mechanism.
>         if (bri->pinctrl)
>                 pinctrl_select_state(bri->pinctrl, bri->pins_gpio);

OK, but why that function doesn't use the dev->pins->p if it's defined?
(As a fallback when rinfo->pinctrl is NULL.)

Wolfram?

Hanna, it seems you missed I?C maintainer to Cc...

...

> I saw that that the change failed in complication for SPARC architecture, as
> the pins field is wraparound with CONFIG_PINCTRL in device struct. I though
> on two options to solve the compilation error, first by adding wraparound of
> CONFIG_PINCTRL when accessing the pins field. And the second option is to
> add get function in pinctrl/devinfo.h file, which return the pins field, or
> NULL in case the PINCTRL is not defined. Which option you think we can go
> with?

Getter with a stub sounds better to me, so you won't access some device core
fields.

Linus, what do you think about all these (including previous paragraph)?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko