ARM: shmobile: Move gpio ranges from C code to DT

If a GPIO driver uses gpiochip_add_pin_range() (which is usually the case for GPIO/PFC combos), the GPIO hogging mechanism configured from DT doesn't work:

requesting hog GPIO led1-high (chip r8a73a4_pfc, offset 28) failed

The actual error code is -517 == -EPROBE_DEFER.

The problem is that PFC+GPIO registration is handled in multiple steps:
1. pinctrl_register(),
2. gpiochip_add(),
3. gpiochip_add_pin_range().

Configuration of the hogs is handled in gpiochip_add():

    gpiochip_add
        of_gpiochip_add
            of_gpiochip_scan_hogs
                gpiod_hog
                    gpiochip_request_own_desc
                        __gpiod_request
                            chip->request
                                pinctrl_request_gpio
                                    pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range

However, at this point the GPIO controller hasn't been added to pinctrldev_list yet, so the range can't be found, and the operation fails with -EPROBE_DEFER.

To fix this, add a "gpio-ranges" property to the gpio device node, so the ranges are added by of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(), which is called by of_gpiochip_add() before the call to of_gpiochip_scan_hogs().

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi +7 -0

index 5090d1a8f652e8be..cb4f7b2798fe23be 100644
@@ -207,6 +207,13 @@
 		reg = <0 0xe6050000 0 0x9000>;
 		gpio-controller;
 		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		gpio-ranges =
+			<&pfc 0 0 31>, <&pfc 32 32 9>,
+			<&pfc 64 64 22>, <&pfc 96 96 31>,
+			<&pfc 128 128 7>, <&pfc 160 160 19>,
+			<&pfc 192 192 31>, <&pfc 224 224 27>,
+			<&pfc 256 256 28>, <&pfc 288 288 21>,
+			<&pfc 320 320 10>;
 		interrupts-extended =
 			<&irqc0  0 0>, <&irqc0  1 0>, <&irqc0  2 0>, <&irqc0  3 0>,
 			<&irqc0  4 0>, <&irqc0  5 0>, <&irqc0  6 0>, <&irqc0  7 0>,

Quoted 33 lines · On Tuesday 30 June 2015 09:45:21 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

If a GPIO driver uses gpiochip_add_pin_range() (which is usually the case for GPIO/PFC combos), the GPIO hogging mechanism configured from DT doesn't work:

requesting hog GPIO led1-high (chip r8a73a4_pfc, offset 28) failed

The actual error code is -517 == -EPROBE_DEFER.

The problem is that PFC+GPIO registration is handled in multiple steps:
1. pinctrl_register(),
2. gpiochip_add(),
3. gpiochip_add_pin_range().

Configuration of the hogs is handled in gpiochip_add():

    gpiochip_add
        of_gpiochip_add
            of_gpiochip_scan_hogs
                gpiod_hog
                    gpiochip_request_own_desc
                        __gpiod_request
                            chip->request
                                pinctrl_request_gpio
                                    pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range

However, at this point the GPIO controller hasn't been added to pinctrldev_list yet, so the range can't be found, and the operation fails with -EPROBE_DEFER.

To fix this, add a "gpio-ranges" property to the gpio device node, so the ranges are added by of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(), which is called by of_gpiochip_add() before the call to of_gpiochip_scan_hogs().

Quoted 1 line

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

This looks sane to me, even though referencing the same DT node seems a bit dodgy. I'll let Linus comment on that, but for the implementation itself,

Acked-by Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>

Quoted 15 lines

---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi +2 -0

index 5090d1a8f652e8be..cb4f7b2798fe23be 100644
@@ -207,6 +207,13 @@
              reg = <0 0xe6050000 0 0x9000>;
              gpio-controller;
              #gpio-cells = <2>;
+             gpio-ranges =
+                     <&pfc 0 0 31>, <&pfc 32 32 9>,

arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi line 219

Quoted 8 lines

arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi +5 -0

+                     <&pfc 64 64 22>, <&pfc 96 96 31>,
+                     <&pfc 128 128 7>, <&pfc 160 160 19>,
+                     <&pfc 192 192 31>, <&pfc 224 224 27>,
+                     <&pfc 256 256 28>, <&pfc 288 288 21>,
+                     <&pfc 320 320 10>;
              interrupts-extended =
                      <&irqc0  0 0>, <&irqc0  1 0>, <&irqc0  2 0>, <&irqc0  3 0>,
                      <&irqc0  4 0>, <&irqc0  5 0>, <&irqc0  6 0>, <&irqc0  7 0>,

Quoted 6 lines · Laurent Pinchart

Quoted 5 lines

To fix this, add a "gpio-ranges" property to the gpio device node, so the ranges are added by of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(), which is called by of_gpiochip_add() before the call to of_gpiochip_scan_hogs().

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

Quoted 4 lines

This looks sane to me, even though referencing the same DT node seems a bit dodgy. I'll let Linus comment on that, but for the implementation itself,

Acked-by Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>

Thank you!

Any wise words from Linus?

If a GPIO driver uses gpiochip_add_pin_range() (which is usually the case for GPIO/PFC combos), the GPIO hogging mechanism configured from DT doesn't work:

requesting hog GPIO lcd0 (chip r8a7740_pfc, offset 176) failed

The actual error code is -517 == -EPROBE_DEFER.

The problem is that PFC+GPIO registration is handled in multiple steps:
1. pinctrl_register(),
2. gpiochip_add(),
3. gpiochip_add_pin_range().

Configuration of the hogs is handled in gpiochip_add():

    gpiochip_add
        of_gpiochip_add
            of_gpiochip_scan_hogs
                gpiod_hog
                    gpiochip_request_own_desc
                        __gpiod_request
                            chip->request
                                pinctrl_request_gpio
                                    pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range

However, at this point the GPIO controller hasn't been added to pinctrldev_list yet, so the range can't be found, and the operation fails with -EPROBE_DEFER.

To fix this, add a "gpio-ranges" property to the gpio device node, so the range is added by of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(), which is called by of_gpiochip_add() before the call to of_gpiochip_scan_hogs().

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi +1 -0

index 3aaab195132bfc2c..15977b5834de9579 100644
@@ -316,6 +316,7 @@
 		      <0xe605800c 0x20>;
 		gpio-controller;
 		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		gpio-ranges = <&pfc 0 0 212>;
 		interrupts-extended =
 			<&irqpin0 0 0>, <&irqpin0 1 0>, <&irqpin0 2 0>, <&irqpin0 3 0>,
 			<&irqpin0 4 0>, <&irqpin0 5 0>, <&irqpin0 6 0>, <&irqpin0 7 0>,

If a GPIO driver uses gpiochip_add_pin_range() (which is usually the case for GPIO/PFC combos), the GPIO hogging mechanism configured from DT doesn't work:

requesting hog GPIO led1-high (chip sh73a0_pfc, offset 20) failed

The actual error code is -517 == -EPROBE_DEFER.

The problem is that PFC+GPIO registration is handled in multiple steps:
1. pinctrl_register(),
2. gpiochip_add(),
3. gpiochip_add_pin_range().

Configuration of the hogs is handled in gpiochip_add():

    gpiochip_add
        of_gpiochip_add
            of_gpiochip_scan_hogs
                gpiod_hog
                    gpiochip_request_own_desc
                        __gpiod_request
                            chip->request
                                pinctrl_request_gpio
                                    pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range

However, at this point the GPIO controller hasn't been added to pinctrldev_list yet, so the range can't be found, and the operation fails with -EPROBE_DEFER.

To fix this, add a "gpio-ranges" property to the gpio device node, so the ranges are added by of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(), which is called by of_gpiochip_add() before the call to of_gpiochip_scan_hogs().

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sh73a0.dtsi | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

arch/arm/boot/dts/sh73a0.dtsi +3 -0

index 11e17c5f26e2cae2..ff7c8f298f30a58d 100644
@@ -392,6 +392,9 @@
 		      <0xe605801c 0x1c>;
 		gpio-controller;
 		#gpio-cells = <2>;
+		gpio-ranges =
+			<&pfc 0 0 119>, <&pfc 128 128 37>, <&pfc 192 192 91>,
+			<&pfc 288 288 22>;
 		interrupts-extended =
 			<&irqpin0 0 0>, <&irqpin0 1 0>, <&irqpin0 2 0>, <&irqpin0 3 0>,
 			<&irqpin0 4 0>, <&irqpin0 5 0>, <&irqpin0 6 0>, <&irqpin0 7 0>,

On platforms where the PFC/GPIO controller is instantiated from DT, the mapping between GPIOs and pins is set up using the "gpio-ranges" property in DT.

Hence stop setting up the mapping from C code on DT platforms. This code is still used for SH or ARM-legacy platforms.

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +0 -8

index ba353735ecf2be9a..1be118e4865fd3f8 100644
@@ -379,22 +379,26 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
 
 	pfc->gpio = chip;
 
-	/* Register the GPIO to pin mappings. As pins with GPIO ports must come
-	 * first in the ranges, skip the pins without GPIO ports by stopping at
-	 * the first range that contains such a pin.
-	 */
-	for (i = 0; i < pfc->nr_ranges; ++i) {
-		const struct sh_pfc_pin_range *range = &pfc->ranges[i];
-
-		if (range->start >= pfc->nr_gpio_pins)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +18 -0

+		/*
+		 * Register the GPIO to pin mappings. As pins with GPIO ports
+		 * must come first in the ranges, skip the pins without GPIO
+		 * ports by stopping at the first range that contains such a
+		 * pin.
+		 */
+		for (i = 0; i < pfc->nr_ranges; ++i) {
+			const struct sh_pfc_pin_range *range = &pfc->ranges[i];
+
+			if (range->start >= pfc->nr_gpio_pins)
+				break;
+
+			ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&chip->gpio_chip,
+				dev_name(pfc->dev), range->start, range->start,
+				range->end - range->start + 1);
+			if (ret < 0)
+				return ret;
+		}
 	}
 
 	/* Register the function GPIOs chip. */

Quoted 33 lines · On Tuesday 30 June 2015 09:45:24 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On platforms where the PFC/GPIO controller is instantiated from DT, the mapping between GPIOs and pins is set up using the "gpio-ranges" property in DT.

Hence stop setting up the mapping from C code on DT platforms. This code is still used for SH or ARM-legacy platforms.

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +0 -13

index ba353735ecf2be9a..1be118e4865fd3f8 100644
@@ -379,22 +379,26 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
 
      pfc->gpio = chip;
 
-     /* Register the GPIO to pin mappings. As pins with GPIO ports must come
-      * first in the ranges, skip the pins without GPIO ports by stopping at
-      * the first range that contains such a pin.
-      */
-     for (i = 0; i < pfc->nr_ranges; ++i) {
-             const struct sh_pfc_pin_range *range = &pfc->ranges[i];
-
-             if (range->start >= pfc->nr_gpio_pins)
-                     break;
-
-             ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&chip->gpio_chip,
-                                          dev_name(pfc->dev),
-                                          range->start, range->start,

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc) · line 383

Quoted 5 lines

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +2 -3

-                                          range->end - range->start + 1);
-             if (ret < 0)
-                     return ret;
+     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUPERH) ||
+         IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY)) {

I'd prefer checking IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && pfc->dev->of_node as that doesn't explicitly depend on the platform type.

As the code after this if block also don't need to run on non-DT platforms, how about just using

        if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && pfc->dev->of_node)
                return 0;

?

Quoted 39 lines · Laurent Pinchart

Quoted 38 lines · On Tuesday 30 June 2015 09:45:24 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On platforms where the PFC/GPIO controller is instantiated from DT, the mapping between GPIOs and pins is set up using the "gpio-ranges" property in DT.

Hence stop setting up the mapping from C code on DT platforms. This code is still used for SH or ARM-legacy platforms.

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---

 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +0 -1

index ba353735ecf2be9a..1be118e4865fd3f8 100644
@@ -379,22 +379,26 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
 
      pfc->gpio = chip;
 
-     /* Register the GPIO to pin mappings. As pins with GPIO ports must

come
- * first in the ranges, skip the pins without GPIO ports by
stopping at

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +0 -12

-      * the first range that contains such a pin.
-      */
-     for (i = 0; i < pfc->nr_ranges; ++i) {
-             const struct sh_pfc_pin_range *range = &pfc->ranges[i];
-
-             if (range->start >= pfc->nr_gpio_pins)
-                     break;
-
-             ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&chip->gpio_chip,
-                                          dev_name(pfc->dev),
-                                          range->start, range->start,
-                                          range->end - range->start +

Quoted 8 lines

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc) · line 383

Quoted 5 lines

1);

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +2 -2

-             if (ret < 0)
-                     return ret;
+     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUPERH) ||
+         IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY)) {

I'd prefer checking IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && pfc->dev->of_node as that doesn't explicitly depend on the platform type.

Note that CONFIG_OF is also set for ARM-legacy (and soon for SH). But that's a minor problem. But due to the runtime check on pfc->dev->of_node, the unused code below won't be left out by the compiler, and I want to get rid of that code.

The platform check make it clear when the code can be removed.

Quoted 9 lines

As the code after this if block also don't need to run on non-DT platforms,
how about just using

        if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && pfc->dev->of_node)
        
                return 0;

?

Early return is indeed an option, as we don't need the function GPIOs on DT platforms.

gpio_chip.free() is optional, and can just be left unimplemented.

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
Untested due to lack of hardware (used on sh only).

---
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +0 -5

index 1be118e4865fd3f8..b8929b5e2fa26c53 100644
@@ -286,17 +286,12 @@ static int gpio_function_request(struct gpio_chip *gc,
 unsigned offset) return ret;
 }
 
-static void gpio_function_free(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
-{
-}
-
 static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip *chip)
 {
 	struct sh_pfc *pfc = chip->pfc;
 	struct gpio_chip *gc = &chip->gpio_chip;
 
 	gc->request = gpio_function_request;
-	gc->free = gpio_function_free;
 
 	gc->label = pfc->info->name;
 	gc->owner = THIS_MODULE;

Move sh_pfc_add_gpiochip() to the generic helper section at the top of the file, so it can be called from the "Function GPIOs" section later.

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 58  +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +29 -31

index b8929b5e2fa26c53..30654e800580524d 100644
@@ -131,6 +131,35 @@ static int gpio_setup_data_regs(struct sh_pfc_chip
 *chip) return 0;
 }
 
+static struct sh_pfc_chip *
+sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc, int(*setup)(struct sh_pfc_chip *),
+		    struct sh_pfc_window *mem)
+{
+	struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
+	int ret;
+
+	chip = devm_kzalloc(pfc->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (unlikely(!chip))
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+
+	chip->mem = mem;
+	chip->pfc = pfc;
+
+	ret = setup(chip);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ERR_PTR(ret);
+
+	ret = gpiochip_add(&chip->gpio_chip);
+	if (unlikely(ret < 0))
+		return ERR_PTR(ret);
+
+	dev_info(pfc->dev, "%s handling gpio %u -> %u\n",
+		 chip->gpio_chip.label, chip->gpio_chip.base,
+		 chip->gpio_chip.base + chip->gpio_chip.ngpio - 1);
+
+	return chip;
+}
+
 /*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- * Pin GPIOs
  */

@@ -305,35 +334,6 @@ static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip
 *chip) * Register/unregister
  */
 
-static struct sh_pfc_chip *
-sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc, int(*setup)(struct sh_pfc_chip *),
-		    struct sh_pfc_window *mem)
-{
-	struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
-	int ret;
-
-	chip = devm_kzalloc(pfc->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (unlikely(!chip))
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
-
-	chip->mem = mem;
-	chip->pfc = pfc;
-
-	ret = setup(chip);
-	if (ret < 0)
-		return ERR_PTR(ret);
-
-	ret = gpiochip_add(&chip->gpio_chip);
-	if (unlikely(ret < 0))
-		return ERR_PTR(ret);
-
-	dev_info(pfc->dev, "%s handling gpio %u -> %u\n",
-		 chip->gpio_chip.label, chip->gpio_chip.base,
-		 chip->gpio_chip.base + chip->gpio_chip.ngpio - 1);
-
-	return chip;
-}
-
 int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
 {
 	struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;

Legacy function GPIOs are no longer used on ARM since commit a27c5cd1a08cc95c ("sh-pfc: sh73a0: Remove function GPIOs"). Extract its setup code into a separate function, and make all function GPIO related code and data depend on CONFIG_SUPERH.

Signed-off-by Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

---
Compile-tested on sh using se7724_defconfig.

---
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h   |  2 ++
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c   | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h +2 -0

index 4c3c37bf7161804d..c38ace46d7111b0d 100644
@@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ struct sh_pfc {
 	unsigned int nr_gpio_pins;
 
 	struct sh_pfc_chip *gpio;
+#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
 	struct sh_pfc_chip *func;
+#endif
 
 	struct sh_pfc_pinctrl *pinctrl;
 };

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +16 -0

index 30654e800580524d..15f4eea186e2ba56 100644
@@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static int gpio_pin_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip *chip)
  * Function GPIOs
  */
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
 static int gpio_function_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
 {
 	static bool __print_once;

@@ -330,6 +331,31 @@ static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip
 *chip) return 0;
 }
 
+static int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
+{
+	struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
+
+	if (!pfc->info->nr_func_gpios)
+		return 0;
+
+	chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
+	if (IS_ERR(chip))
+		return PTR_ERR(chip);
+
+	pfc->func = chip;
+
+	return 0;
+}

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +4 -13

+#endif
+
 /*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- * Register/unregister
  */

@@ -397,22 +423,13 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
 	}
 
 	/* Register the function GPIOs chip. */
-	if (pfc->info->nr_func_gpios == 0)
-		return 0;
-
-	chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
-	if (IS_ERR(chip))
-		return PTR_ERR(chip);
-
-	pfc->func = chip;
-
-	return 0;
+	return sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(pfc);
 }
 
 int sh_pfc_unregister_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
 {
 	gpiochip_remove(&pfc->gpio->gpio_chip);
-	gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
+	sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(pfc);
 
 	return 0;
 }

(quoted diff) +0 -0

b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h index c7508d5f688613b2..c6f9163b3e23041f 100644

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h +2 -0

@@ -138,8 +138,10 @@ struct sh_pfc_soc_info {
 	const struct sh_pfc_function *functions;
 	unsigned int nr_functions;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
 	const struct pinmux_func *func_gpios;
 	unsigned int nr_func_gpios;
+#endif
 
 	const struct pinmux_cfg_reg *cfg_regs;
 	const struct pinmux_data_reg *data_regs;

Quoted 35 lines

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +22 -0

@@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static int gpio_pin_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip *chip)
  * Function GPIOs
  */
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
 static int gpio_function_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
 {
      static bool __print_once;

@@ -330,6 +331,31 @@ static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip
 *chip) return 0;
 }
 
+static int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
+{
+     struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
+
+     if (!pfc->info->nr_func_gpios)
+             return 0;
+
+     chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
+     if (IS_ERR(chip))
+             return PTR_ERR(chip);
+
+     pfc->func = chip;
+
+     return 0;
+}
+
+static void sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
+{
+     gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
+}
+#else

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip · line 358

Quoted 4 lines

drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c +2 -0

+static inline int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) { return 0;
 }
+static inline int sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) {
 return 0; }

Given that those functions are only called from a single location, would it make sense to just compile the calls conditionally instead ? I would find that slightly more readable as it would be more explicit.

Hi Linus, Alex, Laurent, Simon, Magnus,

This patch series moves the setup of the GPIO-PFC pin mapping for Renesas PFC/GPIO combos from C code to DT, and does some cleanups. The move to DT is needed to make the GPIO hogging mechanism work, cfr. the discussion following "[PATCH] [RFC] gpio: Retry deferred GPIO hogging on pin range change" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/16/455).

The series consists of 3 parts:
a. Patches 1-3 add the missing "gpio-ranges" properties to the dtsi
files for all affected SoCs,
b. Patch 4 disables the C code to set up the mapping on DT platforms
(it's still needed on SH or ARM-legacy),
c. Patches 5-7 do a few more cleanups in the sh-pfc gpio code.

Dependencies:
- This series applies against next-next-20150630.
- Part a must go in first, to avoid regressions.
In addition, it's a prerequisite for "ARM: shmobile: armadillo800eva
dts: Add pinctrl and gpio-hog for lcdc0", which has been queued up already in Simon's dt-for-v4.3 branch. Perhaps it can still be reordered?
- While I didn't notice any bad behavior by having part a only, part b should go in immediately after part a. Hence I think it's best if Simon can take this one, too.
- Part c is independent (it doesn't touch the same code), so it can go in before or after the other parts, or in parallel.

Thanks for applying!

Geert Uytterhoeven (7):
ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node
ARM: shmobile: r8a7740 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node
ARM: shmobile: sh73a0 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Stop calling gpiochip_add_pin_range() on DT platforms
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Remove empty gpio_function_free()
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Move sh_pfc_add_gpiochip() up
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Confine legacy function GPIOs to SH

Quoted 28 lines · Geert Uytterhoeven

This patch series moves the setup of the GPIO-PFC pin mapping for Renesas PFC/GPIO combos from C code to DT, and does some cleanups. The move to DT is needed to make the GPIO hogging mechanism work, cfr. the discussion following "[PATCH] [RFC] gpio: Retry deferred GPIO hogging on pin range change" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/16/455).

The series consists of 3 parts:
a. Patches 1-3 add the missing "gpio-ranges" properties to the dtsi
files for all affected SoCs,
b. Patch 4 disables the C code to set up the mapping on DT platforms
(it's still needed on SH or ARM-legacy),
c. Patches 5-7 do a few more cleanups in the sh-pfc gpio code.

Dependencies:
- This series applies against next-next-20150630.
- Part a must go in first, to avoid regressions.
In addition, it's a prerequisite for "ARM: shmobile: armadillo800eva
dts: Add pinctrl and gpio-hog for lcdc0", which has been queued up already in Simon's dt-for-v4.3 branch. Perhaps it can still be reordered?
- While I didn't notice any bad behavior by having part a only, part b should go in immediately after part a. Hence I think it's best if Simon can take this one, too.
- Part c is independent (it doesn't touch the same code), so it can go in before or after the other parts, or in parallel.

Thanks for applying!

Quoted 8 lines

Geert Uytterhoeven (7):
ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node
ARM: shmobile: r8a7740 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node
ARM: shmobile: sh73a0 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Stop calling gpiochip_add_pin_range() on DT platforms
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Remove empty gpio_function_free()
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Move sh_pfc_add_gpiochip() up
pinctrl: sh-pfc: Confine legacy function GPIOs to SH

I'm happy of shmobile people are happy.

Acked-by Linus Walleij <[email protected]>