Hi
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:20 PM Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM Ricardo Ribalda Delgado
> <ricardo.riba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:54 PM Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:30 PM Ricardo Ribalda Delgado
> > > <ricardo.riba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > How do we proceed from here? Can you fix your driver somehow to
> > > > init the valid mask before enabling the gpio?
> > >
> > > Just include a hunk to the qcom driver reordering this call
> > > at the same time. No need to make it separate patches,
> > > it need to be tested together anyways.
> > >
> > > I guess just switch the order of these two:
> > >
> > > ret = gpiochip_add_data(&pctrl->chip, pctrl);
> > > if (ret) {
> > > dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed register gpiochip\n");
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > ret = msm_gpio_init_valid_mask(chip, pctrl);
> > > if (ret) {
> > > dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to setup irq valid bits\n");
> > > gpiochip_remove(&pctrl->chip);
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > the problem is that valid_mask is not a long/integer, is a struct that
> > needs to be malloced, and is malloc at gpiochip_add_data :(
>
> I don't get it, but maybe I'm not smart enough.
Dont take my job, I am the not smart of the conversation :P
>
> gpiochip_add_data() doesn't allocate anything, it
> just adds a already allocated (or static!) gpio_chip
> to the gpiolib subsystem.
>
Take a look to gpiochip_add_data_with_key()
->gpiochip_init_valid_mask()
-> gpiochip->valid_mask = gpiochip_allocate_mask(gpiochip);
> In fact I think it is wrong to set up the mask after
> calling gpiolob_add_data(), because of exactly the
> type of problem you're seeing.
I agree, and I believe that the cleaner way would be to add a function
pointer that replaces:
gpiochip_allocate_mask()
bitmap_fill(p, chip->ngpio);
with a proper initalization from the driver
But as today the only driver that seems to be using valid_mask is msm,
so perhaps a hack is something better and then when we have a second
driver that requires it we figure out the real requirements. But it is
definately your decision ;)
>
> Don't get confused by the &pctrl->chip
> vs just chip variables, it's just some sloppiness.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
Thanks!
--
Ricardo Ribalda
