RE: [PATCH v1 1/2] ARM: dts: aspeed: greatlakes: Add gpio names

[Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 11:21 PM
> To: Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> patrick@xxxxxxxxx; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>; Andrew
> Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-aspeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ARM: dts: aspeed: greatlakes: Add gpio names
> 
>   Security Reminder: Please be aware that this email is sent by an external
> sender.
> 
> On 10/04/2023 09:11, Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn wrote:
> > Thank you for reviewing.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:37 PM
> >> To: Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn
> <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> >> patrick@xxxxxxxxx; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof
> >> Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Joel Stanley
> >> <joel@xxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >> linux-aspeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ARM: dts: aspeed: greatlakes: Add gpio
> >> names
> >>
> >>   Security Reminder: Please be aware that this email is sent by an
> >> external sender.
> >>
> >> On 29/03/2023 10:32, Delphine CC Chiu wrote:
> >>> From: Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Add GPIO names for SOC lines.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-greatlakes.dts    | 49
> >> +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-greatlakes.dts
> >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-greatlakes.dts
> >>> index 8c05bd56ce1e..59819115c39d 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-greatlakes.dts
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-greatlakes.dts
> >>> @@ -238,4 +238,53 @@
> >>>  &gpio0 {
> >>>       pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>>       pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_gpiu1_default &pinctrl_gpiu7_default>;
> >>> +     status = "okay";
> >>
> >> Was it disabled before?
> >>
> > Yes,
> 
> Really? Can you provide any proof for this?
Correct the answer after verifying - when gpio0 status property is not defined, it leads to device default enabled.
> 
> > we have to enable gpio status for meeting aspeed-g6 device tree setting,
> and set net names for pulling gpio pin from application layer.
> 
> What is "enable gpio status"? What does it mean to "meet aspeeg-g6
> devicetree setting"?
> What names have anything to do with my question?
> 
> Sorry, I cannot parse it at all.
To describe more precisely, I surveyed the identification of of_device_is_available() in drivers/of/base.c.
It returns true if the status property is absent or set to "okay" or "ok", and false otherwise.
Because gpio0 status property hasn’t defined in aspeed-g6.dtsi, I set to "okay" to prevent that if it was disabled from other assignment.
> 
> >>> +     gpio-line-names =
> >>> +     /*A0-A7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*B0-B7*/ "power-bmc-nic","presence-ocp-debug",
> >>> +               "power-bmc-slot1","power-bmc-slot2",
> >>> +               "power-bmc-slot3","power-bmc-slot4","","",
> >>> +     /*C0-C7*/ "presence-ocp-nic","","","reset-cause-nic-primary",
> >>> +               "reset-cause-nic-secondary","","","",
> >>> +     /*D0-D7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*E0-E7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*F0-F7*/ "slot1-bmc-reset-button","slot2-bmc-reset-button",
> >>> +               "slot3-bmc-reset-button","slot4-bmc-reset-button",
> >>> +               "","","","presence-emmc",
> >>> +     /*G0-G7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*H0-H7*/ "","","","",
> >>> +               "presence-mb-slot1","presence-mb-slot2",
> >>> +               "presence-mb-slot3","presence-mb-slot4",
> >>> +     /*I0-I7*/ "","","","","","","bb-bmc-button","",
> >>> +     /*J0-J7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*K0-K7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*L0-L7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*M0-M7*/
> >> "","power-nic-bmc-enable","","usb-bmc-enable","","reset-cause-usb-hub
> >> ","","",
> >>> +     /*N0-N7*/ "","","","","bmc-ready","","","",
> >>> +     /*O0-O7*/
> >> "","","","","","","fan0-bmc-cpld-enable","fan1-bmc-cpld-enable",
> >>> +     /*P0-P7*/ "fan2-bmc-cpld-enable","fan3-bmc-cpld-enable",
> >>> +               "reset-cause-pcie-slot1","reset-cause-pcie-slot2",
> >>> +
> "reset-cause-pcie-slot3","reset-cause-pcie-slot4","","",
> >>> +     /*Q0-Q7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*R0-R7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*S0-S7*/ "","","power-p5v-usb","presence-bmc-tpm","","","","",
> >>> +     /*T0-T7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*U0-U7*/ "","","","","","","","GND",
> >>> +     /*V0-V7*/ "bmc-slot1-ac-button","bmc-slot2-ac-button",
> >>> +               "bmc-slot3-ac-button","bmc-slot4-ac-button",
> >>> +               "","","","",
> >>> +     /*W0-W7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*X0-X7*/ "","","","","","","","",
> >>> +     /*Y0-Y7*/ "","","","reset-cause-emmc","","","","",
> >>> +     /*Z0-Z7*/ "","","","","","","",""; };
> >>> +
> >>> +&gpio1 {
> >>> +     status = "okay";
> >>
> >> Same question...
> > Yes, the answer is same as above.
> 
> So the same incorrect?
The status property of gpio1 was also default enabled.
For same reason as gpio0, I set to "okay" from this patch.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof