lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 5/6] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use GPIO lookup table
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:08:22 PM CEST Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:27:05PM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 11:55:51PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 8:00:38 PM CEST Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Janusz Krzysztofik
> > > > > <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 18, 2018 11:21:14 PM CEST Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Janusz Krzysztofik
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > + gpiod_rdy = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "rdy",
> > > > > >> > GPIOD_IN);
> > > > > >> > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(gpiod_rdy)) {
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So, is it optional or not at the end?
> > > > > >> If it is, why do we check for NULL?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I can understand, nand_chip->dev_ready() callback is
> > > > > > optional.
> > > > > > That's why I decided to use the _optional variant of
> > > > > > devm_gpiod_get(). In
> > > > > > case of ams-delta, the dev_ready() callback depends on availability
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the 'rdy' GPIO pin. As a consequence, I'm checking for both NULL and
> > > > > > ERR
> > > > > > in order to decide if dev_ready() will be supported.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can pretty well replace it with the standard form and check for
> > > > > > ERR only
> > > > > > if the purpose of the _optional form is different.
> > > > >
> > > > > NULL check in practice discards the _optional part of gpiod_get(). So,
> > > > > either you use non-optional variant and decide how to handle an
> > > > > errors, or user _optional w/o NULL check.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm going to use something like the below while submitting v2:
> > > >
> > > > - gpiod_rdy = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "rdy", GPIOD_IN);
> > > > - if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(gpiod_rdy)) {
> > > > - this->dev_ready = ams_delta_nand_ready;
> > > > - } else {
> > > > - this->dev_ready = NULL;
> > > > - pr_notice("Couldn't request gpio for Delta NAND ready.\n");
> > > > + priv->gpiod_rdy = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "rdy",
> > > > + GPIOD_IN);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_rdy)) {
> > > > + err = PTR_ERR(priv->gpiod_nwp);
> > >
> > > ??? --------------------------------^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "RDY GPIO request failed (%d)\n", err);
> > > > + goto err_gpiod;
> > >
> > > Driver will just use worst case delay instead of RDY signal, so this
> > > is perhaps too strict. I will work with degraded performance.
> >
> > If RDY signal is not available then the board should not define it.
> > Degrading performance and having users wondering because RDY is
> > sometimes not available is not great. Especially if we get -EPROBE_DEFER
> > here.
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit lost after your comments.
>
> As far as I can read the code of gpiod_get_optional and underlying functions,
> if a board doesn't define the "rdy" pin in a respective lookup table, the
> function returns NULL and the device gets a chance to work in degraded mode.
>
> NULL may also happen if the driver probes the device before the lookup table
> is added. In that case other non-optional pin requests fail with -ENOENT, the
> probe is deferred and the device gets a chance to probe successfully in
> late_init if the table is added but fails if not.
>
> If the pin is defined but GPIO device providing that pin is not available
> (-ENODEV), the probe is initially deferred and may succeed in late_init if the
> GPIO device appears but fails otherwise.
>
> Isn't that behavior acceptable, close enough to the expected even if not
> strictly because of that -EPROBE_DEFER?

Yes, this is correct. I was responding to the comment that erroring out
in "if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_rdy))" branch is too strict. My assertion
that it is not. If a board defines RDY pin we should use it and not try
to degrade to lower performance mode.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 22:57    [W:0.106 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site