[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/2] pinctrl: tegra: Move drivers registration to arch_init level
On 04.08.2018 16:01, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On Friday, 3 August 2018 20:24:56 MSK Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM Stefan Agner <> wrote:
>> > A while back at least using those init lists were not well received even
>> > for GPIO/pinctrl drivers:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> You shouldn't listen too much to that guy he's not trustworthy.


>> > I still think we should make an exception for GPIO/pinctrl and use
>> > earlier initcalls. Platform GPIO/pinctrl drivers provide basic
>> > infrastructure often used by many other drivers, we want to have them
>> > loaded early. It avoids unnecessary EPROBE_DEFER and hence probably even
>> > boots faster.
>> When we have the pin control and GPIO at different initlevels it makes me
>> uneasy because I feel we have implicit init dependencies that seem more
>> than a little fragile.
> Yes, it is not very good.

Btw, just noticed this now:
GPIO driver -> arch_initcall
pinctrl driver -> subsys_initcall

And arch is before subsys. So we initialize GPIO driver first? But isn't
pinctrl required for the GPIO range?

Afaik, especially with gpio-ranges enabled, the GPIO probe will return
-EPROBE_DEFER (I think due to pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range).

So my intuition would be that it should be the other way around...


>> My recent thinking has involved the component method used in DRM drivers
>> such as drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_drv.c where a few different component
>> subdrivers are linked together at bind time (not probe time!) into a master
>> component.
>> Rob was no big fan of this but the DRM people like it and I was thinking to
>> make a try at it.
>> This way we could at least probe and bind the pin control and GPIO drivers
>> at the *same* initlevel and express the dependencies between them
>> somewhat.
> Sounds interesting, maybe you could help to convert Tegra drivers to a such
> method and others will follow afterwards.
>> > This should definitely go in, at least as a stop gap solution.
>> Agreed. (And patch applied.)
> The best solution will be to fix the deferred probing, it's awkward that it
> could break suspend-resume order. Hopefully somebody with a good knowledge of
> driver/base will manage to fix it eventually.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-06 15:04    [W:0.051 / U:2.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site