Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: Add bindings for the Analog Devices ADP5585

From: Rob Herring
Date: Tue May 28 2024 - 11:13:40 EST

Next message: Niklas Schnelle: "Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] s390/pci: Fix s390_mmio_read/write syscall page fault handling"
Previous message: Alexandre Ghiti: "[PATCH 1/7] riscv: Implement cmpxchg32/64() using Zacas"
Next in thread: Laurent Pinchart: "Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: Add bindings for the Analog Devices ADP5585"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 02:16:41AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> (There's a question for the GPIO and PWM maintainers below)
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 09:40:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 22/05/2024 09:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:57:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> On 21/05/2024 21:43, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:05:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >>>> On 20/05/2024 21:59, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>> The ADP5585 is a 10/11 input/output port expander with a built in keypad
> > >>>>> matrix decoder, programmable logic, reset generator, and PWM generator.
> > >>>>> These bindings model the device as an MFD, and support the GPIO expander
> > >>>>> and PWM functions.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> These bindings support the GPIO and PWM functions.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> I've limited the bindings to GPIO and PWM as I lack hardware to design,
> > >>>>> implement and test the rest of the features the chip supports.
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> .../bindings/gpio/adi,adp5585-gpio.yaml | 36 ++++++
> > >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/adi,adp5585.yaml | 117 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>>> .../bindings/pwm/adi,adp5585-pwm.yaml | 35 ++++++
> > >>>>> MAINTAINERS | 7 ++
> > >>>>> 4 files changed, 195 insertions(+)
> > >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/adi,adp5585-gpio.yaml
> > >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/adi,adp5585.yaml
> > >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/adi,adp5585-pwm.yaml
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/adi,adp5585-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/adi,adp5585-gpio.yaml
> > >>>>> new file mode 100644
> > >>>>> index 000000000000..210e4d53e764
> > >>>>> --- /dev/null
> > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/adi,adp5585-gpio.yaml
> > >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> > >>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > >>>>> +%YAML 1.2
> > >>>>> +---
> > >>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/gpio/adi,adp5585-gpio.yaml#
> > >>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> +title: Analog Devices ADP5585 GPIO Expander
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> +maintainers:
> > >>>>> + - Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> +description: |
> > >>>>> + The Analog Devices ADP5585 has up to 11 GPIOs represented by a "gpio" child
> > >>>>> + node of the parent MFD device. See
> > >>>>> + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/adi,adp5585.yaml for further details as
> > >>>>> + well as an example.
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> +properties:
> > >>>>> + compatible:
> > >>>>> + const: adi,adp5585-gpio
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + gpio-controller: true
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + '#gpio-cells':
> > >>>>> + const: 2
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + gpio-reserved-ranges: true
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There are no resources here, so new compatible is not really warranted.
> > >>>> Squash the node into parent.
> > >>>
> > >>> Child nodes seem (to me) to be the standard way to model functions in
> > >>> MFD devices. Looking at mfd_add_device(), for OF-based systems, the
> > >>> function iterates over child nodes. I don't mind going a different
> > >>
> > >> Only to assign of node, which could be skipped as well.
> > >
> > > It has to be assigned somehow, otherwise the GPIO and PWM lookups won't
> > > work. That doesn't have to be done in mfd_add_device() though, it can
> > > also be done manually by the driver. Looking at the example you gave,
> > > cs42l43_pin_probe() handles that assignment. I would have considered
> > > that a bit of a hack, but if that's your preferred approach, I'm fine
> > > with it. Could you confirm you're OK with that ?
> >
> > I am fine with the drivers doing that. It's not a hack, for all
> > sub-devices (e.g. also auxiliary bus) you won't have automatic of_node
> > assignment.
>
> I gave this a try, and here's what I came up with to drop the compatible
> string. Please ignore for a moment the fact that the child nodes are
> still there, that's an orthogonal question which I can address
> separately. What I would like is feedback on how the OF nodes are
> handled.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-adp5585.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-adp5585.c
> index 9696a4cdcfc1..8480ceef05ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-adp5585.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-adp5585.c
> @@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ static int adp5585_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> struct adp5585_gpio_dev *adp5585_gpio;
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct device_node *node;
> struct gpio_chip *gc;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -187,6 +188,13 @@ static int adp5585_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> mutex_init(&adp5585_gpio->lock);
>
> + node = of_get_child_by_name(dev->parent->of_node, "gpio");
> + if (!node)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENXIO, "'gpio' child node not found\n");
> +
> + dev->of_node = node;
> + dev->fwnode = &node->fwnode;

Use device_set_of_node_from_dev().

> +
> gc = &adp5585_gpio->gpio_chip;
> gc->parent = dev;
> gc->direction_input = adp5585_gpio_direction_input;
> @@ -204,6 +212,9 @@ static int adp5585_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &adp5585_gpio->gpio_chip,
> adp5585_gpio);
> if (ret) {
> + of_node_put(dev->of_node);
> + dev->of_node = NULL;
> + dev->fwnode = NULL;
> mutex_destroy(&adp5585_gpio->lock);
> return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "failed to add GPIO chip\n");
> }
> @@ -215,6 +226,10 @@ static void adp5585_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct adp5585_gpio_dev *adp5585_gpio = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>
> + of_node_put(pdev->dev.of_node);
> + pdev->dev.of_node = NULL;
> + pdev->dev.fwnode = NULL;
> +
> mutex_destroy(&adp5585_gpio->lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
> index e39a6ea5f794..3b190567ea0b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
> @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ static const struct pwm_ops adp5585_pwm_ops = {
> static int adp5585_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct device_node *node;
> struct pwm_chip *chip;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -153,16 +155,34 @@ static int adp5585_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (IS_ERR(chip))
> return PTR_ERR(chip);
>
> + node = of_get_child_by_name(dev->parent->of_node, "pwm");
> + if (!node)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENXIO, "'pwm' child node not found\n");
> +
> + dev->of_node = node;
> + dev->fwnode = &node->fwnode;
> +
> pwmchip_set_drvdata(chip, adp5585->regmap);
> chip->ops = &adp5585_pwm_ops;
>
> ret = devm_pwmchip_add(&pdev->dev, chip);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + of_node_put(dev->of_node);
> + dev->of_node = NULL;
> + dev->fwnode = NULL;
> return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "failed to add PWM chip\n");
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void adp5585_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + of_node_put(pdev->dev.of_node);

Wouldn't the driver core do this already? It's not going to know how or
when of_node was set, so should be doing a put regardless.

> + pdev->dev.of_node = NULL;
> + pdev->dev.fwnode = NULL;
> +}
> +
> static struct platform_driver adp5585_pwm_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "adp5585-pwm",
>
> Is this acceptable ? I'm a bit concerned about poking the internals of
> struct device directly from drivers.
>
> I have also refrained from setting fnode->dev to point back to the
> device as fone by cs42l43_pin_probe(), as a comment in struct
> fwnode_handle indicates that the dev field is for device links only and
> shouldn't be touched by anything else. I'm not sure if I should set it.

I think no, but best for Saravana to comment.

>
> > >>> routes, could you indicate what you have in mind, perhaps pointing to an
> > >>> existing driver as an example ?
> > >>
> > >> Most of them? OK, let's take the last added driver in MFD directory:
> > >> cirrus,cs42l43
> > >> It has three children and only two nodes, because only these two devices
> > >> actually need/use/benefit the subnodes.
> > >
> > > Still trying to understand what bothers you here, is it the child nodes,
> > > or the fact that they have a compatible string and are documented in a
> > > separate binding ? Looking at the cirrus,cs42l43 bindings and the
> >
> > What bothers me (and as expressed in many reviews by us) is representing
> > driver structure directly in DT. People model DT based how their Linux
> > drivers are represented. I don't care about driver stuff here, but DT/DTS.
>
> DT models the hardware as seen from a software point of view.

True, but it's for all software's PoV, not some specific s/w.

> It
> shouldn't reflect the structure of Linux drivers, but it has to be
> usable by drivers.

Either way is usable.

Rob

Next message: Niklas Schnelle: "Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] s390/pci: Fix s390_mmio_read/write syscall page fault handling"
Previous message: Alexandre Ghiti: "[PATCH 1/7] riscv: Implement cmpxchg32/64() using Zacas"
Next in thread: Laurent Pinchart: "Re: [PATCH 2/5] dt-bindings: Add bindings for the Analog Devices ADP5585"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]