Re: [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: propagate errors on group config
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> From: Wolfram Sang
>
> On group configuration, bail out if setting one of the individual pins
> fails. We don't need to roll-back, the pinctrl core will do this for us.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
> ---
>
> Tested on a Lager and Salvator-X without problems. Needs probably more testing
> on various HW to avoid regressions?
Queueing in sh-pfc-for-v4.14, now commit 13132b3f44d36009 ("ARM: dts:
armadillo800eva: Split LCD mux and gpio") is in v4.13-rc1.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: propagate errors on group config
Hi Wolfram,
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> This is caused by the "output-high" property for the GPIO hog.
>> Due to both lcd0 pinmux and GPIO hog being part of the same device node,
>> "output-high" is also applied to the lcd0 pins, which fails.
>>
>> RFC fix in "[PATCH/RFC] ARM: dts: armadillo800eva: Split LCD mux and gpio"
>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9745831/)/
>
> Cool, thanks! So, if this issue could get resolved, there are chances to
> revive the original patch?
Yep, that's the plan.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: propagate errors on group config
Hi Geert, > This is caused by the "output-high" property for the GPIO hog. > Due to both lcd0 pinmux and GPIO hog being part of the same device node, > "output-high" is also applied to the lcd0 pins, which fails. > > RFC fix in "[PATCH/RFC] ARM: dts: armadillo800eva: Split LCD mux and gpio" > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9745831/)/ Cool, thanks! So, if this issue could get resolved, there are chances to revive the original patch? Regards, Wolfram signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: propagate errors on group config
Hi Wolfram,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On group configuration, bail out if setting one of the individual pins
>> fails. We don't need to roll-back, the pinctrl core will do this for us.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
>> ---
>>
>> Tested on a Lager and Salvator-X without problems. Needs probably more
>> testing
>> on various HW to avoid regressions?
>
> Your patch causes the display to fail on r8a7740/armadillo.
>
> Disabling the error propagation and adding more debug prints reveals:
>
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_validate: pin 58: 15 not supported
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_set:694: config 0: sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() failed
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_group_set:781: sh_pfc_pinconf_set() failed -524 for
> pin 0 of group lcd0_data24_0
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_validate: pin 57: 15 not supported
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_set:694: config 0: sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() failed
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_group_set:781: sh_pfc_pinconf_set() failed -524 for
> pin 1 of group lcd0_data24_0
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_validate: pin 56: 15 not supported
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_set:694: config 0: sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() failed
> +sh_pfc_pinconf_group_set:781: sh_pfc_pinconf_set() failed -524 for
> pin 2 of group lcd0_data24_0
> ...
>
> 15 = PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT
>
> No idea why this is set for all pins of the lcd0_data24_0 group (and not for
> any
> other pin or group on any other SoC).
This is caused by the "output-high" property for the GPIO hog.
Due to both lcd0 pinmux and GPIO hog being part of the same device node,
"output-high" is also applied to the lcd0 pins, which fails.
RFC fix in "[PATCH/RFC] ARM: dts: armadillo800eva: Split LCD mux and gpio"
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9745831/)/
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: propagate errors on group config
> > On group configuration, bail out if setting one of the individual pins > > fails. We don't need to roll-back, the pinctrl core will do this for us. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang > > --- > > > > Tested on a Lager and Salvator-X without problems. Needs probably more > > testing > > on various HW to avoid regressions? > > Your patch causes the display to fail on r8a7740/armadillo. I would have been surprised if this patch didn't uncover some hidden issues. > 15 = PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT > > No idea why this is set for all pins of the lcd0_data24_0 group (and not for > any > other pin or group on any other SoC). Me neither. Sadly no bandwith here to dig into it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: propagate errors on group config
Hi Wolfram,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On group configuration, bail out if setting one of the individual pins
> fails. We don't need to roll-back, the pinctrl core will do this for us.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
> ---
>
> Tested on a Lager and Salvator-X without problems. Needs probably more testing
> on various HW to avoid regressions?
Your patch causes the display to fail on r8a7740/armadillo.
Disabling the error propagation and adding more debug prints reveals:
+sh_pfc_pinconf_validate: pin 58: 15 not supported
+sh_pfc_pinconf_set:694: config 0: sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() failed
+sh_pfc_pinconf_group_set:781: sh_pfc_pinconf_set() failed -524 for
pin 0 of group lcd0_data24_0
+sh_pfc_pinconf_validate: pin 57: 15 not supported
+sh_pfc_pinconf_set:694: config 0: sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() failed
+sh_pfc_pinconf_group_set:781: sh_pfc_pinconf_set() failed -524 for
pin 1 of group lcd0_data24_0
+sh_pfc_pinconf_validate: pin 56: 15 not supported
+sh_pfc_pinconf_set:694: config 0: sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() failed
+sh_pfc_pinconf_group_set:781: sh_pfc_pinconf_set() failed -524 for
pin 2 of group lcd0_data24_0
...
15 = PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT
No idea why this is set for all pins of the lcd0_data24_0 group (and not for any
other pin or group on any other SoC).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
