[PATCH 2/2] ARM: OMAP2+: Enable pinctrl dummy states

[Matt Porter]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:03:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matt Porter <mporter at ti.com> [120911 12:05]:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:35:22AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > Added Linus Walleij to Cc as well.
> 
> Now I think I really managed to add Linus W to Cc, sent too fast
> earlier.
> ...
> 
> > > But do you get an error then if the desired pins are not found?
> > > If you do get an error, then sounds like it's OK to do.
> >
> > Hrm, no. In that case, it will be completely silent (assuming we took
> > care of the pinmuxing in the bootloader) as it uses the dummy state.
> > Only with debug on will you see the information that mcspi has used
> > the dummy state as is the case with !DT.
> ...
>  
> > > Well I think we should consider at least the following:
> > > 
> > > 1. Always see warnings when device tree is populated with board-generic.
> > >    If somebody wants to use bootloader only muxing with DT, they can patch
> > >    in pinctrl_provide_dummies() somewhere. But let's assume we always
> > >    want to see the warnings with board-generic.c and DT.
> > 
> > Ok, this is clear.
> > 
> > > 2. For legacy booting without DT, we should not see any warnings
> > >    from pinctrl-single.c as it's DT based.
> > 
> > Right, except anything legacy booting without DT will require that
> > dummy states be present otherwise it will fail probe.
> 
> But I guess we should enable the dummy states only for other
> board-*.c files, not board-generic.c? 
> 
> > > 3. There may be other non-pinctrl drivers too that are not DT
> > >    based, and in those cases we should see the warnings as well
> > >    for in the non-DT case.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. "non-pinctrl drivers" means any driver
> > that is not yet pinctrl or DT enabled? It's unclear to me how this
> > case has a bearing on mcspi and pinctrl enablement across legacy
> > board-foo.c !DT booting platforms.
> 
> Right, sorry I meant "non DT pinctrl drivers"..
>  
> > However, I think if the approach was modified by only calling
> > pinctrl_provide_dummies() when we are booting with DT populated
> > and using board-generic.c then it will satisfy all of your
> > concerns. Thoughts?
> 
> Hmm but shouldn't it be call pinctrl_provide_dummies() only
> for other boards except board-generic.c? And that is assuming
> we don't have any other "non DT pinctrl drivers" around.

Yes, I've addressed this now in v2.

> > i.e. the legacy !DT booting will have dummy states and continue
> > along through mcspi the way it does today, relying on board-foo level
> > pinmux calls (or bootloader pinmuxing). Meanwhile DT booting will now
> > require that a mcspi instance also require pinctrl entry in this dts.
> 
> Yes agreed, except let's just produce a warning for the pinctrl
> errors..

Sounds good, I changed this in v2 to use the same warning as leds-gpio.

> > The only worrisome thing is the pinctrl requirement on DT booting is
> > now an implicit requirement.
> 
> ..as otherwise not much will work at this point :)

:)

> > > > > For board-generic.c we always want to see the warnings. And some boards
> > > > > insist on doing all the muxing only in the bootloader.
> > > > 
> > > > Which warnings are you saying we should see in the board-generic.c
> > > > case?  Sure, there's plenty of cases where this will be unused due to
> > > > somebody setting all the muxes in the bootloader and then not using
> > > > pinctrl data. I'll have to doublecheck but I believe that case is also
> > > > fine as the -single driver can't override the dummy state if the DT has
> > > > no pinctrl data for the spi driver.
> 
> I suggest all pinctrl errors should show up as warnings with
> board-generic.c, but we should not exit out of the driver probe
> on errors.

Ok, makes sense to me now.

Thanks,
Matt