* Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yo...@cogentembedded.com> [170511 09:27]:
> > Hmm maybe yeah. I don't quite follow the above the "pinctrl-0 property
> > of sx150x device tree node, is misinterpreted as hog" part though.
>
> sx150x is i2c-gpio device. It has 16 GPIO lines that are communicated
> with via i2c bus, and an interrupt line.
>
> Interrupt line is typically connected to SoC's pin.
> This pin has to be configured.
> This is done by providing appropriate subnode in SoC's pinmux node, with
> information with pin configuration, and pinctrl-0 property in sx150x's
> node with phandle to that subnode:
>
> ...
> &i2c0 {
> sx1503@20 {
> compatible = "semtech,sx1503q";
> pinctrl-names = "default";
> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_sx1503_20>;
> ...
> };
> };
> ...
> &iomuxc {
> pinctrl_sx1503_20: pinctrl-sx1503-20 {
> fsl,pins = <
> VF610_PAD_PTB1__GPIO_23 0x219d
> >;
> };
> };
>
> This pin configuration is handled by driver core, i.e. before probe()
> for sx150x is called, core applies pin configuration.
>
> However sx150x driver is currently implemented as a pinctrl driver.
>
> When it initializes, pinctrl searches for "hog", i.e. pin config that
> should be applied at driver registration time.
>
> While doing so, core searches for any registered pinctrl_map for device
> being register. Search loop is in create_pinctrl().
>
> In this case, this loop finds map that is defined above.
>
> This is *not* hog. This is pin setting already applied in SoC's pinmux
> controller for sx1503 device.
>
> However code in create_pinctrl() tries to apply it, and use sx1503's
> methods to do so. Which is plain wrong and errors out.
Maybe create_pinctrl() could check if the pin controller device
for a potential hog points to the device itself and bail out
if that's not the case?
> > But at least with updating the probe to use pinctrl_register_and_init()
> > and pinctrl_enable() the driver can do something before the hogs are
> > claimed. I just don't know what the driver would here as I don't
> > understand the "misinterpreted as hog" part :)
>
> Tried to explain above :)
Yup OK based on that this seems like a pinctrl core issue.
Regards,
Tony
