pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Subsystems (7)
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Sven Eckelmann reported an issue with the current IPQ4019 pinctrl. Setting up any gpio-hog in the device-tree for his device would "kill the bootup completely":
| [ 0.477838] msm_serial 78af000.serial: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl at 1000000/serial_pinmux, deferring probe | [ 0.499828] spi_qup 78b5000.spi: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl at 1000000/spi_0_pinmux, deferring probe | [ 1.298883] requesting hog GPIO enable USB2 power (chip 1000000.pinctrl, offset 58) failed, -517 | [ 1.299609] gpiochip_add_data: GPIOs 0..99 (1000000.pinctrl) failed to register | [ 1.308589] ipq4019-pinctrl 1000000.pinctrl: Failed register gpiochip | [ 1.316586] msm_serial 78af000.serial: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl at 1000000/serial_pinmux, deferring probe | [ 1.322415] spi_qup 78b5000.spi: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl at 1000000/spi_0_pinmux, deferri
This was also verified on a RT-AC58U (IPQ4018) which would no longer boot, if a gpio-hog was specified. (Tried forcing the USB LED PIN (GPIO0) to high.).
The problem is that Pinctrl+GPIO registration is currently peformed in the following order in pinctrl-msm.c:
1. pinctrl_register()
2. gpiochip_add()
3. gpiochip_add_pin_range()
The actual error code -517 == -EPROBE_DEFER is coming from pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range(), which is called through:
gpiochip_add
of_gpiochip_add
of_gpiochip_scan_gpios
gpiod_hog
gpiochip_request_own_desc
__gpiod_request
chip->request
gpiochip_generic_request
pinctrl_gpio_request
pinctrl_get_device_gpio_rangepinctrl_get_device_gpio_range() is unable to find any valid pin ranges, since nothing has been added to the pinctrldev_list yet. so the range can't be found, and the operation fails with -EPROBE_DEFER.
This patch fixes the issue by adding the "gpio-ranges" property to the pinctrl device node of all upstream Qcom SoC, 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_gpios() happens.gpiochip_add_pin_range() is longer needed and removed (to prevent adding the same entry to the pinctrldev_list twice).
---
The msm8998 would need something like
gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 150>;
v1->v2: restore gpiochip_add_pin_range() for ACPI compatibility
--- arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq4019.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8660.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8960.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi | 3 ++- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8992.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8994.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi | 1 + drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++----- 14 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8064.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ reg = <0x800000 0x4000>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&tlmm_pinmux 0 0 90>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -396,6 +396,7 @@ compatible = "qcom,apq8084-pinctrl"; reg = <0xfd510000 0x4000>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 147>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq4019.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ compatible = "qcom,ipq4019-pinctrl"; reg = <0x01000000 0x300000>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 100>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ reg = <0x800000 0x4000>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&qcom_pinmux 0 0 69>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ msmgpio: pinctrl at 800000 { compatible = "qcom,mdm9615-pinctrl"; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 88>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 16 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; interrupt-controller;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8660.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ reg = <0x800000 0x4000>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 173>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupts = <0 16 0x4>; interrupt-controller;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8960.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ msmgpio: pinctrl at 800000 { compatible = "qcom,msm8960-pinctrl"; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 152>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupts = <0 16 0x4>; interrupt-controller;
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -696,6 +696,7 @@ compatible = "qcom,msm8974-pinctrl"; reg = <0xfd510000 0x4000>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 146>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi +2 -1
@@ -24,11 +24,12 @@ ranges = <0 0 0 0xffffffff>; compatible = "simple-bus"; - pinctrl at 1000000 { + tlmm: pinctrl at 1000000 { compatible = "qcom,ipq8074-pinctrl"; reg = <0x1000000 0x300000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 70>; #gpio-cells = <0x2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <0x2>;
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -281,6 +281,7 @@ reg = <0x1000000 0x300000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 122>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8992.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ reg = <0xfd510000 0x4000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 146>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8994.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ reg = <0xfd510000 0x4000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 146>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -530,6 +530,7 @@ reg = <0x01010000 0x300000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 150>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +16 -5
@@ -831,11 +831,22 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)return ret; } - ret =gpiochip_add_pin_range (&pctrl->chip,dev_name (pctrl->dev),0 ,0 , chip->ngpio); -if (ret) { -dev_err (pctrl->dev,"Failed to add pin range\n" ); -gpiochip_remove (&pctrl->chip); -return ret; +if (!is_of_node (pctrl->dev->fwnode)) { +/* +* gpiochip_add_pin_range() is meant for platforms that +* don't support DT. All DT platforms should just add +* the gpio-ranges property to the pinctrl device node. +* +* See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt . +*/ + ret =gpiochip_add_pin_range (&pctrl->chip, +dev_name (pctrl->dev),0 ,0 , chip->ngpio); + +if (ret) { +dev_err (pctrl->dev,"Failed to add pin range\n" ); +gpiochip_remove (&pctrl->chip); +return ret; + } } ret = gpiochip_irqchip_add(chip,
Signature · 1 line
2.16.3
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
On Mon 02 Apr 05:10 PDT 2018, Christian Lamparter wrote:
[..]
Quoted 17 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi +1
-0@@ -530,6 +530,7 @@ reg = <0x01010000 0x300000>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; gpio-controller; + gpio-ranges = <&msmgpio 0 0 150>; #gpio-cells = <2>; interrupt-controller; #interrupt-cells = <2>;drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +0
-0
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl) · line 834
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +1
-5@@ -831,11 +831,22 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)return ret; } - ret =gpiochip_add_pin_range (&pctrl->chip,dev_name (pctrl->dev),0 ,0 , chip->ngpio); -if (ret) { -dev_err (pctrl->dev,"Failed to add pin range\n" ); -gpiochip_remove (&pctrl->chip); -return ret; +if (!is_of_node (pctrl->dev->fwnode)) {
Afaict this still means that if I boot this kernel with yesterday's dtb (without gpio-ranges) I will not get any gpios. This isn't okay.
@Linus, I count 24 callers of gpiochip_add_pin_range(). Is this suggestion reasonable?
Can we make gpiochip_add_pin_range() check if there's already a gpio-range and return ok in some way?
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +5
-0+/* +* gpiochip_add_pin_range() is meant for platforms that +* don't support DT. All DT platforms should just add +* the gpio-ranges property to the pinctrl device node. +*
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl) · line 849
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +10
-0+* See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt . +*/ + ret =gpiochip_add_pin_range (&pctrl->chip, +dev_name (pctrl->dev),0 ,0 , chip->ngpio); + +if (ret) { +dev_err (pctrl->dev,"Failed to add pin range\n" ); +gpiochip_remove (&pctrl->chip); +return ret; + }
Regards,
Bjorn
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Quoted 9 lines · On Montag, 2. April 2018 17:04:47 CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
Quoted 8 lines · Christian Lamparter
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +0
-0@@ -831,11 +831,22 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)return ret; }
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl) · line 834
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +1
-5- ret =gpiochip_add_pin_range (&pctrl->chip,dev_name (pctrl->dev),0 ,0 , chip->ngpio); -if (ret) { -dev_err (pctrl->dev,"Failed to add pin range\n" ); -gpiochip_remove (&pctrl->chip); -return ret; +if (!is_of_node (pctrl->dev->fwnode)) {Afaict this still means that if I boot this kernel with yesterday's dtb (without gpio-ranges) I will not get any gpios. This isn't okay.
Ok, fair point. I drop this chunk.
Quoted 5 lines
@Linus, I count 24 callers of
gpiochip_add_pin_range(). Is this suggestion reasonable?Can we make
gpiochip_add_pin_range()check if there's already a gpio-range and return ok in some way?
Looks like Linus is currently really busy updating the gemini target (a lot of work went into it) for OpenWrt.
<https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2018-April/043752.html>
(Kinda funny, because I do help to maintain the apm821xx and the new ipq40xx target over there.)
In any case, I implemented your suggestion and it does look reasonable. The gpiolib already uses the gpio_offset as an ID of some sorts. For now I went with a simple ID value check, but this could be extended to a range/intersection check if necessary. But then again, let's not overengineer it. Comments are welcome, I'll wait around till sometime next week before I post v3.
Regards,
Christian
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +41 -0
@@ -2013,6 +2013,19 @@ int gpiochip_generic_config(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (gpiochip_generic_config); +static struct gpio_pin_range *gpiochip_find_by_id (struct gpio_chip *chip, +unsigned int id) +{ +struct gpio_pin_range *pin_range; +struct gpio_device *gdev = chip->gpiodev; + +list_for_each_entry (pin_range, &gdev->pin_ranges, node) { +if (pin_range->range.id == id) +return pin_range; + } +return NULL ; +} +#ifdef CONFIG_PINCTRL /**
@@ -2030,6 +2043,20 @@ int gpiochip_add_pingroup_range(struct gpio_chip *chip,struct gpio_device *gdev = chip->gpiodev;int ret; +/* +* look if a GPIO range with the same ID has already been registered. +* For pinctrls that are set up through devicetree, the GPIO Range +* might be already set by the the gpio-ranges property. +* (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt) +*/ + pin_range =gpiochip_find_by_id (chip, gpio_offset); +if (pin_range) { +chip_dbg (chip,"found existing GPIO range %d->%d - skipping\n" , + gpio_offset, + gpio_offset + pin_range->range.npins -1 ); +return 0 ; + } + pin_range =kzalloc (sizeof (*pin_range),GFP_KERNEL );if (!pin_range) {chip_err (chip,"failed to allocate pin ranges\n" );
@@ -2083,6 +2110,20 @@ int gpiochip_add_pin_range(struct gpio_chip *chip, const char *pinctl_name,struct gpio_device *gdev = chip->gpiodev;int ret; +/* +* look if a GPIO range with the same ID has already been registered. +* For pinctrls that are set up through devicetree, the GPIO Range +* might be already set by the the gpio-ranges property. +* (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt) +*/ + pin_range =gpiochip_find_by_id (chip, gpio_offset); +if (pin_range) { +chip_dbg (chip,"found existing GPIO range %d->%d - skipping\n" , + gpio_offset, + gpio_offset + pin_range->range.npins -1 ); +return 0 ; + } + pin_range =kzalloc (sizeof (*pin_range),GFP_KERNEL );if (!pin_range) {chip_err (chip,"failed to allocate pin ranges\n" );
---
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
I see I might have missed this mail, sorry for that.
Quoted 19 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 9 lines · On Montag, 2. April 2018 17:04:47 CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
Quoted 8 lines · Christian Lamparter
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +0
-0@@ -831,11 +831,22 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)return ret; }Quoted 9 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl) · line 834
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +1
-5- ret =gpiochip_add_pin_range (&pctrl->chip,dev_name (pctrl->dev),0 ,0 , chip->ngpio); -if (ret) { -dev_err (pctrl->dev,"Failed to add pin range\n" ); -gpiochip_remove (&pctrl->chip); -return ret; +if (!is_of_node (pctrl->dev->fwnode)) {Afaict this still means that if I boot this kernel with yesterday's dtb (without gpio-ranges) I will not get any gpios. This isn't okay.
Quoted 7 lines
Ok, fair point. I drop this chunk.
Quoted 5 lines
@Linus, I count 24 callers of
gpiochip_add_pin_range(). Is this suggestion reasonable?Can we make
gpiochip_add_pin_range()check if there's already a gpio-range and return ok in some way?
I think I replied in some other mail that I think we need to be backwards compatible and it's not too hard to do both. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Quoted 5 lines
Looks like Linus is currently really busy updating the gemini target (a lot of work went into it) for OpenWrt.
<https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2018-April/043752.html>
(Kinda funny, because I do help to maintain the apm821xx and the new ipq40xx target over there.)
Yeah it was more of a hobby, partly research for a lecture on maintaining old ARM systems and all dangerous aftermarket devices that is littering the world.
Since I have noticed that the adoption of OpenWRT/LEDE goes far beyond routers and it is one of the most prevalent distributions that is existing in the IoT of darkness on the planet being the most deployed OS for bitcoin mining and being picked up for functional safety (such as automotive) because of its minimalist userspace.
I'm still amazed by the weirdness of our business.
Quoted 6 lines
In any case, I implemented your suggestion and it does look reasonable. The gpiolib already uses the
gpio_offsetas an ID of some sorts. For now I went with a simple ID value check, but this could be extended to a range/intersection check if necessary. But then again, let's not overengineer it. Comments are welcome, I'll wait around till sometime next week before I post v3.
I'm going through my mailbox now, sorry for delays in feedback and review :(
Yours,
Linus Walleij
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Quoted 11 lines · On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 11:12:21 CEST Linus Walleij wrote:
Quoted 6 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 5 lines · On Montag, 2. April 2018 17:04:47 CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
@Linus, I count 24 callers of
gpiochip_add_pin_range(). Is this suggestion reasonable?Can we make
gpiochip_add_pin_range()check if there's already a gpio-range and return ok in some way?I think I replied in some other mail that I think we need to be backwards compatible and it's not too hard to do both. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think so too, I looked around and found that the nvidia pinctrl was doing something similar with of_find_property():
<https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc2/source/drivers/pinctrl/tegra/pinctrl-tegra.c#L652>
| has_prop = of_find_property(np, "gpio-ranges", NULL);
However this looks kinda funny, since "has_prob" is declared as a bool and of_find_property() returns a pointer to a "struct property".... Tell you what: If nobody beats me to it, I'll sent a patch for this after the pinctrl-msm's gpio-hog has been dealt with. :)
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Looks like Linus is currently really busy updating the gemini target (a lot of work went into it) for OpenWrt.
<https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2018-April/043752.html>
(Kinda funny, because I do help to maintain the apm821xx and the new ipq40xx target over there.)Yeah it was more of a hobby, partly research for a lecture on maintaining old ARM systems and all dangerous aftermarket devices that is littering the world.
Quoted 8 lines
Since I have noticed that the adoption of OpenWRT/LEDE goes far beyond routers and it is one of the most prevalent distributions that is existing in the IoT of darkness on the planet being the most deployed OS for bitcoin mining and being picked up for functional safety (such as automotive) because of its minimalist userspace.
I'm still amazed by the weirdness of our business.
I think I can add something to this thought as well. Albeit, it's a more traditional, less zany story.
I started with the apm821xx (a PowerPC 464 derivative SoC) back in 2015-2016 because of the wide availabilty of cheap (as low as $5 ~ $10) secondhand enterprise accesspoints like the Cisco Meraki MR24
<https://openwrt.org/toh/meraki/mr24>.
What happen was that cooperations ditched all the outdated 802.11n devices and upgraded to the shiny new wave1 802.11ac gear. Now, the old 802.11n devices still worked perfectly fine but the firmware on the device requires the user to have a valid subscription to a "Meraki Cloud License".
And as you can probably guess: The License is sold as a yearly subscription starting from $150 for a single device. So, these devices became practically e-waste since nobody in their right mind would buy a used device and then fork over the ~$150 fee per annum.
The MR24 craze is mostly over by now. You can still find a few. However some listings are now selling them with OpenWrt/LEDE for ~$40.
And obviously, this cycle will continue on, but now with the old wave1 802.11ac gear that gets replaced. In fact this business has spawned companies that are actively working on supporting "old" enterprise gear via their own OpenWrt/LEDE derivatives.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
In any case, I implemented your suggestion and it does look reasonable. The gpiolib already uses the
gpio_offsetas an ID of some sorts. For now I went with a simple ID value check, but this could be extended to a range/intersection check if necessary. But then again, let's not overengineer it. Comments are welcome, I'll wait around till sometime next week before I post v3.I'm going through my mailbox now, sorry for delays in feedback and review :(
I see you skipped v3 and replied to v4.
Best Regards,
Christian Lamparter
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Quoted 11 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 11:12:21 CEST Linus Walleij wrote:
I think I replied in some other mail that I think we need to be backwards compatible and it's not too hard to do both. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think so too, I looked around and found that the nvidia pinctrl was doing something similar with
of_find_property():
<https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc2/source/drivers/pinctrl/tegra/pinctrl-tegra.c#L652>
|has_prop=of_find_property(np, "gpio-ranges", NULL);
Quoted 4 lines
However this looks kinda funny, since "
has_prob" is declared as a bool andof_find_property()returns a pointer to a "struct property".... Tell you what: If nobody beats me to it, I'll sent a patch for this after the pinctrl-msm's gpio-hog has been dealt with. :)
Yeah the nVidia driver is one of the oldest and also at the time DT was kind of new. I haven't heard from Stephen for a while but I bet he will pop up, else check with Laxman, he's got a good grip on nVidia pinctrl+GPIO as well.
Quoted 5 lines
And as you can probably guess: The License is sold as a yearly subscription starting from $150 for a single device. So, these devices became practically e-waste since nobody in their right mind would buy a used device and then fork over the ~$150 fee per annum.
Quoted 7 lines
The MR24 craze is mostly over by now. You can still find a few. However some listings are now selling them with OpenWrt/LEDE for ~$40.
And obviously, this cycle will continue on, but now with the old wave1 802.11ac gear that gets replaced. In fact this business has spawned companies that are actively working on supporting "old" enterprise gear via their own OpenWrt/LEDE derivatives.
Haha that is just awesome :D
I hope they salvage a lot of them.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Quoted 18 lines · On Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2018 14:14:39 CEST Linus Walleij wrote:
Quoted 11 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 11:12:21 CEST Linus Walleij wrote:
I think I replied in some other mail that I think we need to be backwards compatible and it's not too hard to do both. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think so too, I looked around and found that the nvidia pinctrl was doing something similar with
of_find_property():
<https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc2/source/drivers/pinctrl/tegra/pinctrl-tegra.c#L652>
|has_prop=of_find_property(np, "gpio-ranges", NULL);Quoted 4 lines
However this looks kinda funny, since "
has_prob" is declared as a bool andof_find_property()returns a pointer to a "struct property".... Tell you what: If nobody beats me to it, I'll sent a patch for this after the pinctrl-msm's gpio-hog has been dealt with. :)
Quoted 4 lines
Yeah the nVidia driver is one of the oldest and also at the time DT was kind of new. I haven't heard from Stephen for a while but I bet he will pop up, else check with Laxman, he's got a good grip on nVidia pinctrl+GPIO as well.
All in good time.
But first @Bjorn and @Andy or @David can you please look and review v4 "pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues"
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10339129/>
Thanks.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 7 lines
The MR24 craze is mostly over by now. You can still find a few. However some listings are now selling them with OpenWrt/LEDE for ~$40.
And obviously, this cycle will continue on, but now with the old wave1 802.11ac gear that gets replaced. In fact this business has spawned companies that are actively working on supporting "old" enterprise gear via their own OpenWrt/LEDE derivatives.
Haha that is just awesome :D
I hope they salvage a lot of them.
Yes, I'm aware of that some of them where put to good use in the Personal Telco Projec (501(c)(3) non-profit organization in Portland, Oregon):
<https://personaltelco.net/wiki/PersonalTelco>
And they have been somewhat vocal about it too:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/ptp-general/RZ-VjKFonVo/cQgnGn2wAgAJ>
"The MR24 is a dual-band 802.11n 3x3 MIMO access point with a single ethernet port. They are "last-gen" devices, and are starting to show up on ebay at reasonable prices as Meraki's deep-pocket cloud-management enterprise users are beginning to "upgrade" to 802.11ac gear. Note that 802.11n in this case means a fully-open-source driver (ath9k). 802.11ac drivers involve firmware blobs across the board. You don't get super-wide 5GHz channels, but you get freedom. "
;)
By the way, it gets even weirder. In the past (and to this day) Meraki has given away their current crop of enterprise APs via their
"Free AP for IT Professionals" <https://meraki.cisco.com/tc/freeap> program. Of course, the main idea probably was to get them all "hooked/sold" on their cloud-management firmware. Because of course that "Free AP" is intended to be only good for the lifespan of included the 3-year license. However, "IT Professionals" do have their own mind and that's why there is some continued interest in making alternative firmwares for these devices.
Best Regards,
Christian
PATCH v2 1/1 pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
Quoted 20 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 11 lines · On Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2018 14:14:39 CEST Linus Walleij wrote:
Quoted 9 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 11:12:21 CEST Linus Walleij wrote:
I think I replied in some other mail that I think we need to be backwards compatible and it's not too hard to do both. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think so too, I looked around and found that the nvidia pinctrl was doing something similar with
of_find_property():
<https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc2/source/drivers/pinctrl/tegra/pinctrl-tegra.c#L652>
|has_prop=of_find_property(np, "gpio-ranges", NULL);Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
However this looks kinda funny, since "
has_prob" is declared as a bool andof_find_property()returns a pointer to a "struct property".... Tell you what: If nobody beats me to it, I'll sent a patch for this after the pinctrl-msm's gpio-hog has been dealt with. :)Yeah the nVidia driver is one of the oldest and also at the time DT was kind of new. I haven't heard from Stephen for a while but I bet he will pop up, else check with Laxman, he's got a good grip on nVidia pinctrl+GPIO as well.
Quoted 5 lines
All in good time.
But first @Bjorn and @Andy or @David can you please look and review v4 "pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues"
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10339129/>
Agree with the patch as by adding gpio-ranges, we add the gpio range part of gpiochip_add(), called by of_gpiochip_add()->of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(). and so does not need to explicitly call of the gpiochip_add_pin_range().
Please add ack in above patch.