> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnaud POULIQUEN <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 3:21 AM
> To: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>; Linus Walleij
> <[email protected]>; Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>; Jonathan Corbet
> <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley <[email protected]>; Bjorn Andersson
> <[email protected]>; Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]>; Frank Li
> <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Pengutronix Kernel Team
> <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>; Peng Fan
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-arm-
> [email protected]; dl-linux-imx <[email protected]>; Bartosz
> Golaszewski <[email protected]>; Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] gpio: rpmsg: add generic rpmsg GPIO driver
> > + rproc = rproc_get_by_child(&rpdev->dev);
> > + if (!rproc)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + np = of_node_get(rproc->dev.of_node);
> > + if (!np && rproc->dev.parent)
> > + np = of_node_get(rproc->dev.parent->of_node);
>
> Is a topology where they is no rproc->dev node but a parent node exist?
>
If no rproc->dev, it should return NULL in the above check.
> > +
> > + if (np) {
> > + /* Balance the of_node_put() performed by
> > of_find_node_by_name().
> */
> > + of_node_get(np);
> > + np_chan = of_find_node_by_name(np, chan_name);
> > + of_node_put(np);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return np_chan;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +rpmsg_gpio_channel_callback(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data,
> > + int len, void *priv, u32 src) {
> > + struct gpio_rpmsg_packet *msg = data;
> > + struct rpmsg_gpio_port *port = NULL;
> > + struct rpdev_drvdata *drvdata;
> > +
> > + drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(&rpdev->dev);
> > + if (drvdata && msg && msg->port_idx < MAX_PORT_PER_CHANNEL)
> > + port = drvdata->channel_devices[msg->port_idx];
> > +
> > + if (!port)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + if (msg->header.type == GPIO_RPMSG_REPLY) {
> > + *port->info.reply_msg = *msg;
> > + complete(&port->info.cmd_complete);
>
> What happen if the remoteprocessor answer after the completion timeout?
> Could it result in desynchronization between the request and the answer?
If the remote processor responds after the timeout, that late reply will be
ignored. The current
transfer should fail with TIMEOUT, and the state won’t be carried over because
cmd_complete
is reinitialized before each new request, so a stale completion won’t
desynchronize the next
transaction. Each command–reply cycle is isolated, so a delayed reply cannot
corrupt or mix with
a subsequent request.
>
> Having a cmd_counter in gpio_rpmsg_head could help to identify current request
> and answer
>
> the use of reinit_completion could be also needed
>
> > + } else if (msg->header.type == GPIO_RPMSG_NOTIFY) {
> > + generic_handle_domain_irq_safe(port->gc.irq.domain,
> > msg->pin_idx);
> > + } else
> > + dev_err(&rpdev->dev, "wrong command type!\n");
>
> Could you print the msg->header.type value to help for debug?
>
Sure. Will add it in next version.
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rpmsg_gpio_channel_probe(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev) {
> > + struct device *dev = &rpdev->dev;
> > + struct rpdev_drvdata *drvdata;
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!dev->of_node) {
> > + np = rpmsg_get_channel_ofnode(rpdev, rpdev->id.name);
> > + if (np) {
> > + dev->of_node = np;
> > + set_primary_fwnode(dev, of_fwnode_handle(np));
> > + }
> > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + drvdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*drvdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!drvdata)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + drvdata->rproc_name = rpmsg_get_rproc_node_name(rpdev);
> > + dev_set_drvdata(dev, drvdata);
> > +
> > + for_each_child_of_node_scoped(dev->of_node, child) {
> > + if (!of_device_is_available(child))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (!of_match_node(dev->driver->of_match_table, child))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + ret = rpmsg_gpiochip_register(rpdev, child);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to register: %pOF\n", child);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> return ret
> or indicate why the return of rpmsg_gpiochip_register is not taken into
> account
>
rpmsg_gpiochip_register() failing only affects whether the GPIO instance gets
created. The
rpmsg channel driver itself can still probe successfully and continue to
operate for other features.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rpmsg_gpio_channel_remove(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev) {
> > + dev_info(&rpdev->dev, "rpmsg gpio channel driver is removed\n");
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id rpmsg_gpio_dt_ids[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "rpmsg-gpio" },
> > + { /* sentinel */ }
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct rpmsg_device_id rpmsg_gpio_channel_id_table[] = {
> > + { .name = "rpmsg-io-channel" },
>
> I would remove the "-channel" suffix to have similar naming than "rpmsg-tty"
> and
> "rpmsg-raw"
>
The channel name comes from the remote firmware, so we can’t freely rename it
on the
Linux side. On i.MX platforms the firmware follows its own naming conventions,
and the *-channel
suffix is part of that scheme.
Thanks,
Shenwei
> Regards,
> Arnaud
>
> > + { },
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(rpmsg, rpmsg_gpio_channel_id_table);
> > +
> > +static struct rpmsg_driver rpmsg_gpio_channel_client = {
> > + .drv.name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> > + .drv.of_match_table = rpmsg_gpio_dt_ids,
> > + .id_table = rpmsg_gpio_channel_id_table,
> > + .probe = rpmsg_gpio_channel_probe,
> > + .callback = rpmsg_gpio_channel_callback,
> > + .remove = rpmsg_gpio_channel_remove,
> > +};
> > +module_rpmsg_driver(rpmsg_gpio_channel_client);
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("generic rpmsg gpio driver");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
