Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v1] gpio: ml: ioh: Convert to dev_pm_ops
From: Andy Shevchenko
Date: Mon Jul 12 2021 - 19:08:07 EST
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:36 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 02:48:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:47:06PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:23:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Datasheets are publicly available (at least one may google and find some
> > information about those PCH chips). I have in possession the hardware for
> > gpio-pch. I can easily test that part at least.
> If you have a URL for those datasheets, can you share it? I spent
> some time looking but all I found was 1-2 page marketing brochures.
It's a part of the so called EG20T PCH. It's part of in particular
Intel Galileo (Quark SoC) and Intel Minnowboard (v1) (Atom E6xx SoC).
Hence the easily found links:
Hmm... Funny, the document #324211 can't be downloaded
I guess you may ping Intel and tell them that they should play nice
when talking about "open hardware" (MinnowBoard initiative).
Nevertheless, the (Old? #457798 is a specification update under NDA.
Okay, it refers to rev 8, while Mouser, see below, provides rev 9)
copy is available on other sites, such as
> > > that's not a trivial task, and I don't think that burden should fall
> > > on anyone who wants to make any improvements to these drivers.
> > > Another alternative would be to remove legacy PCI PM usage
> > > (ioh_gpio_suspend() and ioh_gpio_resume()) from gpio-ml-ioh. That
> > > would mean gpio-ml-ioh wouldn't support power management at all, which
> > > isn't a good thing, but maybe it would be even more motivation to
> > > unify it with gpio-pch (which has already been converted by
> > > 226e6b866d74 ("gpio: pch: Convert to dev_pm_ops"))?
> > With regard to (1) probably we may exceptionally accept the fix to
> > gpio-ml-ioh, but I really prefer to do the much more _useful_ job on
> > it by unifying the two.
> Should Vaibhav re-post this patch, or do you want to pull it from the
> archives? I just checked and it still applies cleanly to v5.14-rc1.
> Here it is for reference:
I'll take from the archives.
> I'll post a couple small patches toward unifying them. They don't do
> the whole job but they're baby steps.
Thanks! I look forward to seeing them soon!
With Best Regards,