[v2] gpiolib: Pass consumer device through to core in devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index()
Commit Message
This devm API takes a consumer device as an argument to setup the devm
action, but throws it away when calling further into gpiolib. This leads
to odd debug messages like this:
(NULL device *): using DT '/gpio-keys/switch-pen-insert' for '(null)' GPIO lookup
Let's pass the consumer device down, by directly calling what
fwnode_gpiod_get_index() calls but pass the device used for devm. This
changes the message to look like this instead:
gpio-keys gpio-keys: using DT '/gpio-keys/switch-pen-insert' for '(null)' GPIO lookup
Note that callers of fwnode_gpiod_get_index() will still see the NULL
device pointer debug message, but there's not much we can do about that
because the API doesn't take a struct device.
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Fixes: 8eb1f71e7acc ("gpiolib: consolidate GPIO lookups")
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
---
Changes from v1 (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240221015920.676063-1-swboyd@chromium.org):
* Rebased onto gpio/for-next
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-devres.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 14 +++++++-------
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h | 8 ++++++++
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
base-commit: 36e44186e0badfda499b65d4462c49783bf92314
Comments
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:52:53PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> This devm API takes a consumer device as an argument to setup the devm
> action, but throws it away when calling further into gpiolib. This leads
> to odd debug messages like this:
>
> (NULL device *): using DT '/gpio-keys/switch-pen-insert' for '(null)' GPIO lookup
>
> Let's pass the consumer device down, by directly calling what
> fwnode_gpiod_get_index() calls but pass the device used for devm. This
> changes the message to look like this instead:
>
> gpio-keys gpio-keys: using DT '/gpio-keys/switch-pen-insert' for '(null)' GPIO lookup
>
> Note that callers of fwnode_gpiod_get_index() will still see the NULL
> device pointer debug message, but there's not much we can do about that
> because the API doesn't take a struct device.
Have you seen this?
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231019173457.2445119-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:28:07PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:57 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:52:53PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > This devm API takes a consumer device as an argument to setup the devm
> > > action, but throws it away when calling further into gpiolib. This leads
> > > to odd debug messages like this:
> > >
> > > (NULL device *): using DT '/gpio-keys/switch-pen-insert' for '(null)' GPIO lookup
> > >
> > > Let's pass the consumer device down, by directly calling what
> > > fwnode_gpiod_get_index() calls but pass the device used for devm. This
> > > changes the message to look like this instead:
> > >
> > > gpio-keys gpio-keys: using DT '/gpio-keys/switch-pen-insert' for '(null)' GPIO lookup
> > >
> > > Note that callers of fwnode_gpiod_get_index() will still see the NULL
> > > device pointer debug message, but there's not much we can do about that
> > > because the API doesn't take a struct device.
> >
> > Have you seen this?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231019173457.2445119-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
>
> Clearly yes as I queued the first one in that series. The rest did not
> make its way upstream for whatever reason. What is your point? You
> want to respin it?
It was a reply to Stephen. :-)
Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2024-02-28 13:35:31)
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:28:07PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:57 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you seen this?
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231019173457.2445119-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
> >
> > Clearly yes as I queued the first one in that series. The rest did not
> > make its way upstream for whatever reason. What is your point? You
> > want to respin it?
>
> It was a reply to Stephen. :-)
>
I saw it but it hadn't gone anywhere for many months so I fixed the
problem I saw. Will you resend it?
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ struct gpio_desc *devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index(struct device *dev,
if (!dr)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
- desc = fwnode_gpiod_get_index(fwnode, con_id, index, flags, label);
+ desc = gpiod_find_and_request(dev, fwnode, con_id, index, flags, label, false);
if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
devres_free(dr);
return desc;
@@ -4187,13 +4187,13 @@ static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_by_fwnode(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
return desc;
}
-static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_and_request(struct device *consumer,
- struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
- const char *con_id,
- unsigned int idx,
- enum gpiod_flags flags,
- const char *label,
- bool platform_lookup_allowed)
+struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_and_request(struct device *consumer,
+ struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
+ const char *con_id,
+ unsigned int idx,
+ enum gpiod_flags flags,
+ const char *label,
+ bool platform_lookup_allowed)
{
unsigned long lookupflags = GPIO_LOOKUP_FLAGS_DEFAULT;
/*
@@ -223,6 +223,14 @@ static inline int gpiod_request_user(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *label)
return ret;
}
+struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_and_request(struct device *consumer,
+ struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
+ const char *con_id,
+ unsigned int idx,
+ enum gpiod_flags flags,
+ const char *label,
+ bool platform_lookup_allowed);
+
int gpiod_configure_flags(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *con_id,
unsigned long lflags, enum gpiod_flags dflags);
int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce);