| Message ID | 1374655405-22998-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Sachin, On 07/24/2013 10:43 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote: > With the recent cleanup in Exynos platform code notably commits > 17859bec ("ARM: EXYNOS: Do not select legacy Kconfig symbols any > more") and b9222210 ("ARM: EXYNOS: Remove mach/gpio.h"), the definition > of ARCH_NR_GPIOS got removed. This started causing problems on SoCs like > Exynos4412 which have more than the default number of GPIOs. Thus define > this number in KConfig file which takes care of current SoC requirements > and provides scope for GPIO expanders. Without this patch we get the > following errors during boot: > > gpiochip_add: gpios 251..258 (gpv0) failed to register > samsung-pinctrl 106e0000.pinctrl: failed to register gpio_chip gpv0, > error code: -22 > samsung-pinctrl: probe of 106e0000.pinctrl failed with error -22 > > Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> > Cc: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> > --- > Changes since v3: > Rearranged different default values in single line. > --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > index f8fb910..ac9fa38 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig > @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI > config ARCH_NR_GPIO > int > default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA > - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 > - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE > + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or 392 there would be sufficient margin. -- Regards, Sylwester
Hi Sylwester, On 24 July 2013 16:14, Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > On 07/24/2013 10:43 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> With the recent cleanup in Exynos platform code notably commits >> 17859bec ("ARM: EXYNOS: Do not select legacy Kconfig symbols any >> more") and b9222210 ("ARM: EXYNOS: Remove mach/gpio.h"), the definition >> of ARCH_NR_GPIOS got removed. This started causing problems on SoCs like >> Exynos4412 which have more than the default number of GPIOs. Thus define >> this number in KConfig file which takes care of current SoC requirements >> and provides scope for GPIO expanders. Without this patch we get the >> following errors during boot: >> >> gpiochip_add: gpios 251..258 (gpv0) failed to register >> samsung-pinctrl 106e0000.pinctrl: failed to register gpio_chip gpv0, >> error code: -22 >> samsung-pinctrl: probe of 106e0000.pinctrl failed with error -22 >> >> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> >> Cc: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> >> --- >> Changes since v3: >> Rearranged different default values in single line. >> --- >> arch/arm/Kconfig | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> index f8fb910..ac9fa38 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI >> config ARCH_NR_GPIO >> int >> default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA >> - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 >> - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE >> + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 > > Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather > leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. Even I had left it that way earlier. However Kukjin suggested the above (single line). I feel it is more of individual preference. > > Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most > cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low > they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or > 392 there would be sufficient margin. I agree. Again, I do not have any reservations here. I just went with maintainer's choice which was a superset of your and Tomasz's suggestions :)
Sachin Kamat wrote: > > Hi Sylwester, > Hi all, [...] > >> @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI > >> config ARCH_NR_GPIO > >> int > >> default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA > >> - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 > >> - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE > >> + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 > > > > Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather > > leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. > > Even I had left it that way earlier. However Kukjin suggested the > above (single line). > I feel it is more of individual preference. > I know it is quite big but I think if we want to use the large number, I'd preferred to use enough the large number so that we don't need to update it soon. If so, multiple line is useless... Note, according to git log, for omap5, 256 is the accurately right number. > > > > Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most > > cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low > > they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or > > 392 there would be sufficient margin. > Hmm... > I agree. Again, I do not have any reservations here. I just went with > maintainer's choice which was a superset of your and Tomasz's > suggestions :) > - Kukjin
Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > Hi Sylwester, > > > Hi all, > > [...] > > > >> @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI > > >> config ARCH_NR_GPIO > > >> int > > >> default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA > > >> - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 > > >> - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE > > >> + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 > > > > > > Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather > > > leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. > > > > Even I had left it that way earlier. However Kukjin suggested the > > above (single line). > > I feel it is more of individual preference. > > > I know it is quite big but I think if we want to use the large number, I'd > preferred to use enough the large number so that we don't need to update > it soon. If so, multiple line is useless... > > Note, according to git log, for omap5, 256 is the accurately right number. > > > > > > > Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most > > > cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low > > > they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or > > > 392 there would be sufficient margin. > > > Hmm... > > > I agree. Again, I do not have any reservations here. I just went with > > maintainer's choice which was a superset of your and Tomasz's > > suggestions :) > > If you have another opinion on this, please let me know before sending fixes for 3.11 probably tomorrow morning in my time. Thanks, Kukjin
On 07/24/2013 02:00 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Kukjin Kim wrote: >> Sachin Kamat wrote: [...] >>>>> @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI >>>>> config ARCH_NR_GPIO >>>>> int >>>>> default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA >>>>> - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 >>>>> - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE >>>>> + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 >>>> >>>> Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather >>>> leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. >>> >>> Even I had left it that way earlier. However Kukjin suggested the >>> above (single line). >>> I feel it is more of individual preference. >>> >> I know it is quite big but I think if we want to use the large number, I'd >> preferred to use enough the large number so that we don't need to update >> it soon. If so, multiple line is useless... >> >> Note, according to git log, for omap5, 256 is the accurately right number. If it's done similarly for other SoCs then I'm fine with change as above. 256 entries is only about 3 kB anyway, it shouldn't be a big deal for systems using those SoCs. >>>> Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most >>>> cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low >>>> they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or >>>> 392 there would be sufficient margin. >>> >> Hmm... >> >>> I agree. Again, I do not have any reservations here. I just went with >>> maintainer's choice which was a superset of your and Tomasz's >>> suggestions :) > > If you have another opinion on this, please let me know before sending fixes > for 3.11 probably tomorrow morning in my time. I'm OK with that change. Sorry for the trouble. -- Thanks, Sylwester
diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig index f8fb910..ac9fa38 100644 --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI config ARCH_NR_GPIO int default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 default 392 if ARCH_U8500 default 352 if ARCH_VT8500 default 288 if ARCH_SUNXI
With the recent cleanup in Exynos platform code notably commits 17859bec ("ARM: EXYNOS: Do not select legacy Kconfig symbols any more") and b9222210 ("ARM: EXYNOS: Remove mach/gpio.h"), the definition of ARCH_NR_GPIOS got removed. This started causing problems on SoCs like Exynos4412 which have more than the default number of GPIOs. Thus define this number in KConfig file which takes care of current SoC requirements and provides scope for GPIO expanders. Without this patch we get the following errors during boot: gpiochip_add: gpios 251..258 (gpv0) failed to register samsung-pinctrl 106e0000.pinctrl: failed to register gpio_chip gpv0, error code: -22 samsung-pinctrl: probe of 106e0000.pinctrl failed with error -22 Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> Cc: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> --- Changes since v3: Rearranged different default values in single line. --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)