diff mbox series

[36/43] pwm: ep93xx: drop legacy pinctrl

Message ID 20230424123522.18302-37-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me
State New
Headers
Series ep93xx device tree conversion |

Commit Message

Nikita Shubin April 24, 2023, 12:34 p.m. UTC 
  Drop legacy gpio request/free since we are using
pinctrl for this now.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Shubin <nikita.shubin@maquefel.me>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c | 16 ----------------
 1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)

Comments

Uwe Kleine-König May 15, 2023, 2:32 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:34:52PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> Drop legacy gpio request/free since we are using
> pinctrl for this now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikita Shubin <nikita.shubin@maquefel.me>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c | 16 ----------------
>  1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> index 8bfe6cfbb3db..657adb011aeb 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> @@ -45,20 +45,6 @@ static inline struct ep93xx_pwm *to_ep93xx_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
>  	return container_of(chip, struct ep93xx_pwm, chip);
>  }
>  
> -static int ep93xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> -{
> -	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(chip->dev);
> -
> -	return ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio(pdev);

I didn't get the whole series and didn't spot a relevant followup change
on lore.k.o, so: I assume ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio() and
ep93xx_pwm_release_gpio() will be unused in the end? Do you drop them?

I assume this series target to be taken via arm-soc (once the review
feedback is positive)?

I wonder if this change breaks non-dt machine support?

Best regards
Uwe
Nikita Shubin May 16, 2023, 10:43 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hello Uwe!

On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:34:52PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> > Drop legacy gpio request/free since we are using
> > pinctrl for this now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nikita Shubin <nikita.shubin@maquefel.me>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c | 16 ----------------
> >  1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > index 8bfe6cfbb3db..657adb011aeb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > @@ -45,20 +45,6 @@ static inline struct ep93xx_pwm
> > *to_ep93xx_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> >         return container_of(chip, struct ep93xx_pwm, chip);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int ep93xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> > pwm_device *pwm)
> > -{
> > -       struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(chip-
> > >dev);
> > -
> > -       return ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio(pdev);
> 
> I didn't get the whole series and didn't spot a relevant followup
> change

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230424123522.18302-1-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/

> on lore.k.o, so: I assume ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio() and
> ep93xx_pwm_release_gpio() will be unused in the end? Do you drop
> them?
> 
> I assume this series target to be taken via arm-soc (once the review
> feedback is positive)?
> 
> I wonder if this change breaks non-dt machine support?

The aim for the whole series is fully converting to dt, this means
platform files will be dropped.

The v1 series tries not to break anything until platform removal
commit, before this commit non-dt version should be compilable and
fully functional.

> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
Uwe Kleine-König May 17, 2023, 6:13 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hello Nikita,

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:43:27PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:34:52PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > > index 8bfe6cfbb3db..657adb011aeb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > > @@ -45,20 +45,6 @@ static inline struct ep93xx_pwm
> > > *to_ep93xx_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> > >         return container_of(chip, struct ep93xx_pwm, chip);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static int ep93xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> > > pwm_device *pwm)
> > > -{
> > > -       struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(chip-
> > > >dev);
> > > -
> > > -       return ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio(pdev);
> > 
> > I didn't get the whole series and didn't spot a relevant followup
> > change
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230424123522.18302-1-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/

Yeah, I looked there, but didn't find it. Applied the whole series now
and found "ARM: ep93xx: soc: drop defines". A few things I noticed while
doing so:

 - git am warns about new blank lines at EOF in several patches.

 - b4 am 20230424123522.18302-1-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me
   warns about broken DKIM signatures. The copy I got directly via Cc is
   OK though. The relevant problem is that your To: header is empty but
   part of the signed payload + the copy I got via vger.kernel.org had
   the To header mangled to

	To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) 

   This results in:

	$ curl -s https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230424123522.18302-37-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/raw | dkimverify
	signature verification failed
	$ curl -s https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230424123522.18302-37-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/raw | sed 's/^To:.*/To:/' | dkimverify 
	signature ok

   I don't know who is to blame here (i.e. is an empty To allowed?) but
   I'd recommend to put the people you want to merge the patches into
   the To header anyhow.

> > on lore.k.o, so: I assume ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio() and
> > ep93xx_pwm_release_gpio() will be unused in the end? Do you drop
> > them?
> > 
> > I assume this series target to be taken via arm-soc (once the review
> > feedback is positive)?

You didn't reply to that one. Still assuming this to be true, I'll mark
this patch as handled-elsewhere in the PWM patchwork.

> > I wonder if this change breaks non-dt machine support?
> 
> The aim for the whole series is fully converting to dt, this means
> platform files will be dropped.
> 
> The v1 series tries not to break anything until platform removal
> commit, before this commit non-dt version should be compilable and
> fully functional.

OK, the pwm patch looks fine to me,

Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>

Best regards and thanks for your efforts,
Uwe
Nikita Shubin May 17, 2023, 9:29 a.m. UTC | #4 
Hello Uwe!

On Wed, 2023-05-17 at 08:13 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Nikita,
> 
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:43:27PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:34:52PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-
> > > > ep93xx.c
> > > > index 8bfe6cfbb3db..657adb011aeb 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
> > > > @@ -45,20 +45,6 @@ static inline struct ep93xx_pwm
> > > > *to_ep93xx_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> > > >         return container_of(chip, struct ep93xx_pwm, chip);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -static int ep93xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> > > > pwm_device *pwm)
> > > > -{
> > > > -       struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(chip-
> > > > > dev);
> > > > -
> > > > -       return ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio(pdev);
> > > 
> > > I didn't get the whole series and didn't spot a relevant followup
> > > change
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230424123522.18302-1-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/
> 
> Yeah, I looked there, but didn't find it. Applied the whole series
> now
> and found "ARM: ep93xx: soc: drop defines". A few things I noticed
> while
> doing so:
> 
>  - git am warns about new blank lines at EOF in several patches.
> 
>  - b4 am 20230424123522.18302-1-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me
>    warns about broken DKIM signatures. The copy I got directly via Cc
> is
>    OK though. The relevant problem is that your To: header is empty
> but
>    part of the signed payload + the copy I got via vger.kernel.org
> had
>    the To header mangled to
> 
>         To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) 
> 
>    This results in:
> 
>         $ curl -s
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230424123522.18302-37-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/raw
>  | dkimverify
>         signature verification failed
>         $ curl -s
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230424123522.18302-37-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me/raw
>  | sed 's/^To:.*/To:/' | dkimverify 
>         signature ok
> 
>    I don't know who is to blame here (i.e. is an empty To allowed?)
> but
>    I'd recommend to put the people you want to merge the patches into
>    the To header anyhow.
> 
> > > on lore.k.o, so: I assume ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio() and
> > > ep93xx_pwm_release_gpio() will be unused in the end? Do you drop
> > > them?
> > > 
> > > I assume this series target to be taken via arm-soc (once the
> > > review
> > > feedback is positive)?
> 
> You didn't reply to that one. Still assuming this to be true, I'll
> mark
> this patch as handled-elsewhere in the PWM patchwork.

Oh sorry about that, yes the current plan is taking the whole series at
once, when acked by.

> 
> > > I wonder if this change breaks non-dt machine support?
> > 
> > The aim for the whole series is fully converting to dt, this means
> > platform files will be dropped.
> > 
> > The v1 series tries not to break anything until platform removal
> > commit, before this commit non-dt version should be compilable and
> > fully functional.
> 
> OK, the pwm patch looks fine to me,
> 
> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> 
> Best regards and thanks for your efforts,
> Uwe
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
index 8bfe6cfbb3db..657adb011aeb 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
@@ -45,20 +45,6 @@  static inline struct ep93xx_pwm *to_ep93xx_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
 	return container_of(chip, struct ep93xx_pwm, chip);
 }
 
-static int ep93xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
-{
-	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(chip->dev);
-
-	return ep93xx_pwm_acquire_gpio(pdev);
-}
-
-static void ep93xx_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
-{
-	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(chip->dev);
-
-	ep93xx_pwm_release_gpio(pdev);
-}
-
 static int ep93xx_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			    const struct pwm_state *state)
 {
@@ -157,8 +143,6 @@  static int ep93xx_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 }
 
 static const struct pwm_ops ep93xx_pwm_ops = {
-	.request = ep93xx_pwm_request,
-	.free = ep93xx_pwm_free,
 	.apply = ep93xx_pwm_apply,
 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 };