Re: [RFT PATCH 14/21] hte: tegra194: don't access struct gpio_chip

[Dipen Patel]

On 10/4/23 1:30 PM, Dipen Patel wrote:
> On 10/4/23 5:00 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:28 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:53 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Using struct gpio_chip is not safe as it will disappear if the
>>>> underlying driver is unbound for any reason. Switch to using reference
>>>> counted struct gpio_device and its dedicated accessors.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> As Andy points out add <linux/cleanup.h>, with that fixed:
>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> I think this can be merged into the gpio tree after leaving some
>>> slack for the HTE maintainer to look at it, things look so much
>>> better after this.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Linus Walleij
>>
>> Dipen,
>>
>> if you could give this patch a test and possibly ack it for me to take
>> it through the GPIO tree (or go the immutable tag from HTE route) then
>> it would be great. This is the last user of gpiochip_find() treewide,
>> so with it we could remove it entirely for v6.7.
> 
> Progress so far for the RFT...
> 
> I tried applying the patch series on 6.6-rc1 and it did not apply cleanly,
> some patches I needed to manually apply and correct. With all this, it failed
> compilation at some spi/spi-bcm2835 driver. I disabled that and was able to
> compile. I thought I should let you know this part.
> 
> Now, I tried to test the hte and it seems to fail finding the gpio device,
> roughly around this place [1]. I thought it would be your patch series so
> tried to just use 6.6rc1 without your patches and it still failed at the
> same place. I have to trace back now from which kernel version it broke.

[1].
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pateldipen1984/linux.git/tree/drivers/hte/hte-tegra194.c?h=for-next#n781

of course with your patches it would fail for the gdev instead of the chip.
> 
>>
>> Bart
>