Re: [RESEND PATCH] soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
From: Dmitry Torokhov
Date: Sun Dec 04 2022 - 18:55:34 EST
On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, at 05:50, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > SoC team, the problematic patch has been in next for a while and it
> > would be great to get the fix in to make sure the driver is not broken
> > in 6.2. Thanks!
>
> I have no problem taking thsi patch, but I get a merge conflict that
> I'm not sure how to resolve:
>
>
> @@@ -186,23 -182,27 +180,43 @@@ struct qe_pin *qe_pin_request(struct de
> if (WARN_ON(!gc)) {
> err = -ENODEV;
> goto err0;
> ++<<<<<<< HEAD
> + }
> + qe_pin->gpiod = gpiod;
> + qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> + /*
> + * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that the driver
> + * can manipulate pin control settings through its custom API. The real
> + * solution is to create a real pin control driver for this.
> + */
> + qe_pin->num = gpio_chip_hwgpio(gpiod);
> +
> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(gc->of_node, "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> + pr_debug("%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> + gpiod_put(gpiod);
> ++=======
> + } else if (!fwnode_device_is_compatible(gc->fwnode,
> + "fsl,mpc8323-qe-pario-bank")) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s: tried to get a non-qe pin\n", __func__);
> ++>>>>>>> soc: fsl: qe: request pins non-exclusively
> err = -EINVAL;
> - goto err0;
> + } else {
> + qe_pin->controller = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> + /*
> + * FIXME: this gets the local offset on the gpio_chip so that
> + * the driver can manipulate pin control settings through its
> + * custom API. The real solution is to create a real pin control
> + * driver for this.
> + */
> + qe_pin->num = desc_to_gpio(gpiod) - gc->base;
> }
>
> Could you rebase the patch on top of the soc/driver branch in the
> soc tree and send the updated version?
I see, it conflicts with:
c9eb6e546a23 soc: fsl: qe: Switch to use fwnode instead of of_node
that is in next but not in soc/driver tree/branch. OK, I'll rebase and I
just noticed that I was leaking gpiod in case we could not locate gc
(unlikely but still...).
Thanks.
--
Dmitry