Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171229095135.GA25623@wunner.de> References: <5e3106d673c3c41bf92c91f1f43bf30682511366.1514143015.git.lukas@wunner.de> <9ef8be4ef80c38b693e5755c738a88de9c907944.1514143015.git.lukas@wunner.de> <1514450477.7000.302.camel@linux.intel.com> <20171228091805.GA1559@wunner.de> <1514453177.7000.320.camel@linux.intel.com> <1514464858.7000.334.camel@linux.intel.com> <20171229095135.GA25623@wunner.de> From: Loic Poulain Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:18:44 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Bluetooth: Avoid WARN splat due to missing GPIOLIB To: Lukas Wunner , =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBEYW5pcw==?= Cc: Linus Walleij , Andy Shevchenko , Marcel Holtmann , Johan Hedberg , Mika Westerberg , Hans de Goede , Max Shavrick , Leif Liddy , Daniel Roschka , Ronald Tschalaer , "Peter Y. Chuang" , "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-ID: On 29 December 2017 at 10:51, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 13:29 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 10:18 +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: >> >> > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 10:41:17AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> > > > On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 17:07 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: >> >> > > Hm okay, Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt says: >> >> > > >> >> > > Guidelines for GPIOs consumers >> >> > > ============================== >> >> > > >> >> > > Drivers that can't work without standard GPIO calls should have >> >> > > Kconfig entries that depend on GPIOLIB. >> >> > > >> >> > > So a "depends on GPIOLIB" would be more appropriate, right? >> >> > >> >> > Yes, but still wrong for this certain driver. It *can* work w/o >> >> > GPIOLIB. >> >> > Now you have done unnecessary dependency for that case. >> >> >> >> No I think it should use depends on GPIOLIB. >> >> >> >> The reason is that the driver uses unconditional devm_gpiod_get(), >> >> not devm_gpiod_get_optional(). >> > >> > How come? >> > I just checked the code, all three use _optional() variant. >> > >> > I checked in bcm_get_resources(). > > Even though hci_bcm.c uses devm_gpiod_get_optional() for the device > wakeup and shutdown pins, it calls gpiod_set_value() on both pins > without checking if the're NULL in bcm_gpio_set_power(). > > It also calls gpiod_to_irq() on the host wakeup pin without checking > if it's NULL in bcm_get_resources(), which results in a WARN splat > if GPIOLIB is not enabled. > > So this is clearly wrong. The problem is, I don't have this hardware > to test myself, I don't have a spec for the chip and I don't know > what the driver author's intention was. Perhaps these are just glitches > that snuck in when power management was retrofitted into the driver > and we can fix them with a few NULL pointer checks. But I'm not sure > if these pins are really optional. I think this is due to the adaptation to serdev bus support, originally a platform device was only added to describe power control resources (via ACPI/DT), there was no associated pdev for non 'gpio-controllable' devices and so no gpio action. Now that serdev is supported I agree that some pointer checks should be added. Regards, Loic