Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: switch to using gpiod API

[Pali Rohár]

On Tuesday 06 September 2022 14:26:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Pali,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:16:28PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > On Tuesday 06 September 2022 13:43:01 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > This patch switches the driver away from legacy gpio/of_gpio API to
> > > gpiod API, and removes use of of_get_named_gpio_flags() which I want to
> > > make private to gpiolib.
> > 
> > There are many pending pci-mvebu.c patches waiting for review and merge,
> > so I would suggest to wait until all other mvebu patches are processed
> > and then process this one... longer waiting period :-(
> 
> OK, it is not super urgent. OTOH it is a very simple patch :)

In the worst case, I will take it into my pending list of pci-mvebu.c
patches, so it would not be lost. Just yesterday I collected patches and
created pending list:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pali/linux.git/log/?h=pci-mvebu-pending

> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c | 48 +++++++++---------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> > > index 1ced73726a26..a54beb8f611c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> > > @@ -11,14 +11,13 @@
> > >  #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > >  #include <linux/clk.h>
> > >  #include <linux/delay.h>
> > > -#include <linux/gpio.h>
> > > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mbus.h>
> > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > >  #include <linux/of_address.h>
> > >  #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> > > -#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> > >  #include <linux/of_pci.h>
> > >  #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > >  
> > > @@ -1261,9 +1260,8 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_parse_port(struct mvebu_pcie *pcie,
> > >  	struct mvebu_pcie_port *port, struct device_node *child)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev;
> > > -	enum of_gpio_flags flags;
> > >  	u32 slot_power_limit;
> > > -	int reset_gpio, ret;
> > > +	int ret;
> > >  	u32 num_lanes;
> > >  
> > >  	port->pcie = pcie;
> > > @@ -1327,40 +1325,22 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_parse_port(struct mvebu_pcie *pcie,
> > >  			 port->name, child);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	reset_gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(child, "reset-gpios", 0, &flags);
> > > -	if (reset_gpio == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > > -		ret = reset_gpio;
> > > +	port->reset_name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s-reset",
> > > +					  port->name);
> > > +	if (!port->reset_name) {
> > > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > >  		goto err;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	if (gpio_is_valid(reset_gpio)) {
> > > -		unsigned long gpio_flags;
> > > -
> > > -		port->reset_name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s-reset",
> > > -						  port->name);
> > > -		if (!port->reset_name) {
> > > -			ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > +	port->reset_gpio = devm_fwnode_gpiod_get(dev, of_fwnode_handle(child),
> > > +						 "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH,
> > 
> > What does it mean that there is a new GPIOD_OUT_HIGH flag passed to the
> > devm_fwnode_gpiod_get() function?
> 
> This means that we drive the line as "active" as soon as we successfully
> grab GPIO. This is the same as we had with devm_gpio_request_one(), but

Ah :-( Another thing to fix. Driver should not change the signal line at
this stage, but only when it is explicitly asked - at later stage. Some
PCIe card do not like flipping reset line too quick. I see this fix
would not be such easy as during startup we need to reset endpoint card.
Normally just putting it from reset, but if card was not reset state
prior probing driver then it is needed to first put it into reset...

I would fix it this issue after your patch is merged to prevent any
other merge conflicts.

How to tell devm_fwnode_gpiod_get() function that caller is not
interested in changing signal line? Just by changing GPIOD_OUT_HIGH to 0?

> we do not need to figure out actual polarity.
> 
> > 
> > > +						 port->name);
> > > +	ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(port->reset_gpio);
> > > +	if (ret) {
> > > +		if (ret	!= -ENOENT)

Just one check, I think that between "ret" and "!=" is TAB instead of
space. But I'm not sure if it was mangled by email client or of there is
really TAB.

> > >  			goto err;
> > > -		}
> > > -
> > > -		if (flags & OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW) {
> > > -			dev_info(dev, "%pOF: reset gpio is active low\n",
> > > -				 child);
> > > -			gpio_flags = GPIOF_ACTIVE_LOW |
> > > -				     GPIOF_OUT_INIT_LOW;
> > > -		} else {
> > > -			gpio_flags = GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH;
> > > -		}
> > > -
> > > -		ret = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, reset_gpio, gpio_flags,
> > > -					    port->reset_name);
> > > -		if (ret) {
> > > -			if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > -				goto err;
> > > -			goto skip;
> > > -		}
> > > -
> > > -		port->reset_gpio = gpio_to_desc(reset_gpio);
> > > +		/* reset gpio is optional */
> > > +		port->reset_gpio = NULL;
> > 
> > Maybe you can also release port->reset_name as it is not used at this
> > stage?
> 
> OK, I figured it was just a few bytes, but sure, I'll add devm_kfree().
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry