Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46148-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240129115216.96479-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <20240129115216.96479-5-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> <CACRpkdYf4HUaV-Pjr81WjLbzy9zdAnyFWs9gPayPC6-3OjHQwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYf4HUaV-Pjr81WjLbzy9zdAnyFWs9gPayPC6-3OjHQwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:37:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mc1SGLeUOWmKg=fvCdM+RR6FSu2QkFuR17s7L99eRMGug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] reset: Instantiate reset GPIO controller for
 shared reset-gpios
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>, 
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, 
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>, Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@quicinc.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, 
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, 
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>, 
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>, 
	Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 9:57=E2=80=AFAM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro=
org> wrote:
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> something is odd with the addresses on this patch, because neither GPIO
> maintainer is on CC nor linux-gpio@vger, and it's such a GPIO-related
> patch. We only saw it through side effects making <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> optional, as required by this patch.
>
> Please also CC Geert Uytterhoeven, the author of the GPIO aggregator.
>
> i.e. this:
> > 2. !GPIOLIB stub:
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240125081601.118051-3-krzysztof.kozlow=
ski@linaro.org/
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:53=E2=80=AFPM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > Devices sharing a reset GPIO could use the reset framework for
> > coordinated handling of that shared GPIO line.  We have several cases o=
f
> > such needs, at least for Devicetree-based platforms.
> >
> > If Devicetree-based device requests a reset line, while "resets"
> > Devicetree property is missing but there is a "reset-gpios" one,
> > instantiate a new "reset-gpio" platform device which will handle such
> > reset line.  This allows seamless handling of such shared reset-gpios
> > without need of changing Devicetree binding [1].
> >
> > To avoid creating multiple "reset-gpio" platform devices, store the
> > Devicetree "reset-gpios" GPIO specifiers used for new devices on a
> > linked list.  Later such Devicetree GPIO specifier (phandle to GPIO
> > controller, GPIO number and GPIO flags) is used to check if reset
> > controller for given GPIO was already registered.
> >
> > If two devices have conflicting "reset-gpios" property, e.g. with
> > different ACTIVE_xxx flags, this would allow to spawn two separate
> > "reset-gpio" devices, where the second would fail probing on busy GPIO
> > request.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YXi5CUCEi7YmNxXM@robh.at.kernel.org/ =
[1]
> > Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
> > Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
> > Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> (...)
>
> In my naive view, this implements the following:
>
> reset -> virtual "gpio" -> many physical gpios[0..n]

This is a different problem: it supports many users enabling the same
GPIO (in Krzysztof's patch it's one but could be more if needed) but -
unlike the broken NONEXCLUSIVE GPIOs in GPIOLIB - it counts the number
of users and doesn't disable the GPIO for as long as there's at least
one.

Bart

>
> So if there was already a way in the kernel to map one GPIO to
> many GPIOs, the framework could just use that with a simple
> single GPIO?
>
> See the bindings in:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-delay.yaml
>
> This is handled by drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c.
>
> This supports a 1-to-1 map: one GPIO in, one GPIO out, same offset.
> So if that is extended to support 1-to-many, this problem is solved.
>
> Proposed solution: add a single boolean property such as
> aggregate-all-gpios; to the gpio-delay node, making it provide
> one single gpio at offset 0 on the consumer side, and refuse any
> more consumers.
>
> This will also solve the problem with induced delays on
> some GPIO lines as I can see was discussed in the bindings,
> the gpio aggregator already supports that, but it would work
> fine with a delay being zero as well.
>
> This avoids all the hackery with driver stubs etc as well.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij