Re: [PATCH 2/5] pinctrl: Add STMFX GPIO expander Pinctrl/GPIO driver

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Amelie Delaunay
<amelie.delaunay@xxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Amelie, thanks for your patch!

> This patch adds pinctrl/GPIO driver for STMicroelectronics
> Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) GPIO expander.
> STMFX is an I2C slave controller, offering up to 24 GPIOs.
> The driver relies on generic pin config interface to configure the GPIOs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxx>

This is looking very good.

The overall architecture of this patch set is excellent.

I have only one major question about whether this should be
a MFD parent and GPIO-pinctrl-child split driver, see below.

> +config PINCTRL_STMFX
> +       tristate "STMicroelectronics STMFX I2C GPIO expander pinctrl driver"
> +       depends on GPIOLIB && I2C=y
> +       select GENERIC_PINCONF
> +       select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
> +       select REGMAP_I2C

Thanks for using all the helpers, it makes the code very small and
consistent and easy to review and maintain.

> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>

Please just use:
 #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>

> +static void stmfx_gpio_irq_toggle_trigger(struct stmfx_pinctrl *pctl,
> +                                         unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +       u32 reg = get_reg(offset);
> +       u32 mask = get_mask(offset);
> +       int val;
> +
> +       if (!(pctl->irq_toggle_edge[reg] & mask))
> +               return;
> +
> +       val = stmfx_gpio_get(&pctl->gpio_chip, offset);
> +       if (val < 0)
> +               return;
> +
> +       if (val) {
> +               pctl->irq_gpi_type[reg] &= mask;
> +               regmap_write_bits(pctl->regmap, STMFX_REG_IRQ_GPI_TYPE + reg,
> +                                 get_mask(offset), 0);
> +
> +       } else {
> +               pctl->irq_gpi_type[reg] |= mask;
> +               regmap_write_bits(pctl->regmap, STMFX_REG_IRQ_GPI_TYPE + reg,
> +                                 get_mask(offset), get_mask(offset));
> +       }
> +}

We had a bit of discussion about edge trigger emulation on the
mailing list. Strange that these HW engineers didn't think of this,
I thought it was widely known that double-edge trigger (not just one
or the other) is needed in contemporary GPIO HW.

> +       if (!of_find_property(np, "gpio-ranges", NULL)) {
> +               ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&pctl->gpio_chip,
> +                                            dev_name(pctl->dev),
> +                                            0, 0, pctl->pctl_desc.npins);
> +               if (ret)
> +                       return ret;

Do you really need to support DTBs without gpio-ranges?

I.e. can't you just print an error and exit if there is no range?

I think other drivers has this handling because of older
DT bindings and trees drifting around.

> +static const struct regmap_config stmfx_regmap_config = {
> +       .reg_bits = 8,
> +       .val_bits = 8,
> +};

This can probably be improved in the future.
Or are there really exactly 255 registers?

> +static int stmfx_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> +                      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +{
> +       struct device_node *np = client->dev.of_node, *child;
> +       struct stmfx *stmfx;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       stmfx = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*stmfx), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!stmfx)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       i2c_set_clientdata(client, stmfx);
> +
> +       stmfx->dev = &client->dev;
> +
> +       stmfx->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, &stmfx_regmap_config);
> +       if (IS_ERR(stmfx->regmap)) {
> +               ret = PTR_ERR(stmfx->regmap);
> +               dev_err(stmfx->dev,
> +                       "Failed to allocate register map: %d\n", ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       ret = stmfx_chip_init(stmfx, client);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT)
> +                       return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       stmfx->irq = client->irq;
> +       ret = stmfx_irq_init(stmfx);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> +               if (of_property_read_bool(child, "gpio-controller")) {
> +                       ret = stmfx_gpio_init(stmfx, child);
> +                       if (ret)
> +                               goto err;
> +               }
> +       }

Hm so you do not use a MFD driver for the core of the driver?

Instead this driver becomes the core driver?

I guess it is fine as long as the chip is only doing GPIO
and pin control. If the chip has more abilities (such as PWM,
LED...) then the core should be an MFD driver that spawns
GPIO/pinctrl driver as a child, then this child looks up the
regmap from the parent MFD driver.

See for example how the simple STw481x driver does things:
drivers/mfd/stw481x.c
drivers/regulator/stw481x-vmmc.c

This MFD has no GPIO/pin control but it illustrates a simple
parent/child instantiation with an MFD core driver.

It has this DTS entry:

                stw4811@2d {
                        compatible = "st,stw4811";
                        reg = <0x2d>;
                        vmmc_regulator: vmmc {
                                compatible = "st,stw481x-vmmc";
                                regulator-name = "VMMC";
                                regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
                                regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
                        };
                };

The MFD driver matches and spawns the VMMC child
then that driver mathes to the vmmc node.

Yours,
Linus Walleij