Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/9] pinctrl: devicetree: Delete usage of driver_deferred_probe_check_state()

[Saravana Kannan]

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:22 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Saravana,
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:16 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Now that fw_devlink=on by default and fw_devlink supports
> > "pinctrl-[0-8]" property, the execution will never get to the point
>
> 0-9?
>
> oh, it's really 0-8:
>
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl0, "pinctrl-0", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl1, "pinctrl-1", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl2, "pinctrl-2", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl3, "pinctrl-3", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl4, "pinctrl-4", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl5, "pinctrl-5", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl6, "pinctrl-6", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl7, "pinctrl-7", NULL)
>     drivers/of/property.c:DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl8, "pinctrl-8", NULL)
>
> Looks fragile, especially since we now have:
>
>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:
> pinctrl-9 = <&i2cmux_9>;
>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi: pinctrl-10
> = <&i2cmux_10>;
>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi: pinctrl-11
> = <&i2cmux_11>;
>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi: pinctrl-12
> = <&i2cmux_pins_i>;

Checking for pinctrl-* and then verifying if * matches %d would be
more complicated and probably more expensive compared to listing
pinctrl-[0-8]. Especially because more than 50% of pinctrl-*
properties in DT files are NOT pinctrl-%d. So back when we merged
this, Rob and I agreed [0-8] was good enough for now and we can add
more if we needed to. Also, when I checked back then, all the
pinctrl-5+ properties ended up pointing to the same suppliers as the
lower numbered ones. So it didn't make a difference.

Ok, I just checked linux-next all the pinctrl-9+ instances and it's
still true that they all point to the same supplier pointed to by
pinctrl-[0-8].

So yeah, it looks fragile, but is not broken and it's more efficient
than looking for pinctrl-%d or adding more pinctrl-xx entries. So,
let's fix it if it actually breaks? Not going to oppose a patch if
anyone wants to make it more complete.


-Saravana

>
> > where driver_deferred_probe_check_state() is called before the supplier
> > has probed successfully or before deferred probe timeout has expired.
> >
> > So, delete the call and replace it with -ENODEV.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds