driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

[PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Switch to the new generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
standard PCI related work like:
	- pci_save/restore_state()
	- pci_enable/disable_device()
	- pci_set_power_state()
is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
specific operations in its respective callback functions.

Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c | 27 +++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
index 05401da03ca3..e8d0c67bb618 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
@@ -224,9 +224,9 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	pci_disable_device(pdev);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
-static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
+static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
 	scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &bg->lock) {
@@ -238,23 +238,13 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
 		bgwrite(0x0, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
 	}
 
-	pci_save_state(pdev);
-	pci_disable_device(pdev);
-	pci_set_power_state(pdev, pci_choose_state(pdev, state));
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
+static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
-	int err;
-
-	pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0);
-	err = pci_enable_device(pdev);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-	pci_restore_state(pdev);
 
 	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&bg->lock);
 
@@ -267,10 +257,8 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 
 	return 0;
 }
-#else
-#define bt8xxgpio_suspend NULL
-#define bt8xxgpio_resume NULL
-#endif /* CONFIG_PM */
+
+static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
 
 static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
 	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },
@@ -286,8 +274,7 @@ static struct pci_driver bt8xxgpio_pci_driver = {
 	.id_table	= bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl,
 	.probe		= bt8xxgpio_probe,
 	.remove		= bt8xxgpio_remove,
-	.suspend	= bt8xxgpio_suspend,
-	.resume		= bt8xxgpio_resume,
+	.driver.pm	= &bt8xxgpio_pm_ops,
 };
 
 module_pci_driver(bt8xxgpio_pci_driver);
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by kernel test robot 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Hi Vaibhav,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on brgl/gpio/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master v6.17 next-20251010]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Vaibhav-Gupta/driver-gpio-bt8xx-use-generic-PCI-PM/20251010-185625
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brgl/linux.git gpio/for-next
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251010105338.664564-1-vaibhavgupta40%40gmail.com
patch subject: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM
config: loongarch-randconfig-002-20251011 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251011/202510110924.dUQeeRV6-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: loongarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.5.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251011/202510110924.dUQeeRV6-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202510110924.dUQeeRV6-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c: In function 'bt8xxgpio_suspend':
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:233:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_outen'
     233 |                 bg->saved_outen = bgread(BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
         |                   ^~
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:234:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_data'
     234 |                 bg->saved_data = bgread(BT848_GPIO_DATA);
         |                   ^~
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c: In function 'bt8xxgpio_resume':
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:254:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_outen'
     254 |         bgwrite(bg->saved_outen, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
         |                   ^~
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:61:41: note: in definition of macro 'bgwrite'
      61 | #define bgwrite(dat, adr)       writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
         |                                         ^~~
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:255:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_data'
     255 |         bgwrite(bg->saved_data & bg->saved_outen,
         |                   ^~
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:61:41: note: in definition of macro 'bgwrite'
      61 | #define bgwrite(dat, adr)       writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
         |                                         ^~~
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:255:36: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_outen'
     255 |         bgwrite(bg->saved_data & bg->saved_outen,
         |                                    ^~
   drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:61:41: note: in definition of macro 'bgwrite'
      61 | #define bgwrite(dat, adr)       writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
         |                                         ^~~


vim +233 drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c

ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  226  
2213c7a2cb81b2 drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c Vaibhav Gupta       2025-10-10  227  static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  228  {
2213c7a2cb81b2 drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c Vaibhav Gupta       2025-10-10  229  	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  230  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  231  
b9a557d05a7dde drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c Bartosz Golaszewski 2025-03-10  232  	scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &bg->lock) {
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25 @233  		bg->saved_outen = bgread(BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25 @234  		bg->saved_data = bgread(BT848_GPIO_DATA);
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  235  
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  236  		bgwrite(0, BT848_INT_MASK);
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  237  		bgwrite(~0x0, BT848_INT_STAT);
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  238  		bgwrite(0x0, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
b9a557d05a7dde drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c Bartosz Golaszewski 2025-03-10  239  	}
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  240  
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  241  	return 0;
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  242  }
ff1d5c2f0268f4 drivers/gpio/bt8xxgpio.c  Michael Buesch      2008-07-25  243  

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Michael Büsch 3 months, 4 weeks ago

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:43:54 +0800
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Vaibhav,
> 
> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

>    drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c: In function 'bt8xxgpio_suspend':
> >> drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:233:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_outen'  
>      233 |                 bg->saved_outen = bgread(BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
>          |                   ^~


It looks like the
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
must be removed from struct bt8xxgpio definition.

-- 
Michael Büsch
https://bues.ch/

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 4 weeks ago

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 12:26:12PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:43:54 +0800
> kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Vaibhav,
> > 
> > kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
> 
> >    drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c: In function 'bt8xxgpio_suspend':
> > >> drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:233:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_outen'  
> >      233 |                 bg->saved_outen = bgread(BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
> >          |                   ^~
> 
> 
> It looks like the
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> must be removed from struct bt8xxgpio definition.
> 
> -- 
> Michael Büsch
> https://bues.ch/

Hello Michael,

Ah yes, this macro somehow got overlooked by me. I will send a v2.
Thanks for the review!

Regards,
Vaibhav

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Bartosz Golaszewski 3 months, 3 weeks ago

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 12:26:12PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:43:54 +0800
> > kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vaibhav,
> > >
> > > kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
> >
> > >    drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c: In function 'bt8xxgpio_suspend':
> > > >> drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c:233:19: error: 'struct bt8xxgpio' has no member named 'saved_outen'
> > >      233 |                 bg->saved_outen = bgread(BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
> > >          |                   ^~
> >
> >
> > It looks like the
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > must be removed from struct bt8xxgpio definition.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Büsch
> > https://bues.ch/
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Ah yes, this macro somehow got overlooked by me. I will send a v2.
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Regards,
> Vaibhav

While at it: the subject should be: "gpio: bt8xx: ..."

Bart

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 3 weeks ago

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 11:41:43AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > Ah yes, this macro somehow got overlooked by me. I will send a v2.
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vaibhav
> 
> While at it: the subject should be: "gpio: bt8xx: ..."
> 
> Bart

Done in v4.

Vaibhav

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Bartosz Golaszewski 3 months, 3 weeks ago

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 1:03 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 11:41:43AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Michael,
> > >
> > > Ah yes, this macro somehow got overlooked by me. I will send a v2.
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vaibhav
> >
> > While at it: the subject should be: "gpio: bt8xx: ..."
> >
> > Bart
>
> Done in v4.
>
> Vaibhav

No, it was not.

Bartosz

Re: [PATCH v1] driver: gpio-bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 3 weeks ago

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 05:36:17PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 1:03 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > While at it: the subject should be: "gpio: bt8xx: ..."
> > >
> > > Bart
> >
> > Done in v4.
> >
> > Vaibhav
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Bartosz

Ah I see, I though you just wanted the transformation of "gpio-bt8xx:" to
"gpio: bt8xx:". I've removed "driver:" as well in v5 from the header.

Vaibhav

[PATCH v5] gpio: bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Switch to the new generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
standard PCI related work like:
	- pci_save/restore_state()
	- pci_enable/disable_device()
	- pci_set_power_state()
is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
specific operations in its respective callback functions.

Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c | 29 +++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
index 05401da03ca3..70b49c385b43 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
@@ -52,10 +52,8 @@ struct bt8xxgpio {
 	struct pci_dev *pdev;
 	struct gpio_chip gpio;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
 	u32 saved_outen;
 	u32 saved_data;
-#endif
 };
 
 #define bgwrite(dat, adr)	writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
@@ -224,9 +222,9 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	pci_disable_device(pdev);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
-static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
+static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
 	scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &bg->lock) {
@@ -238,23 +236,13 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
 		bgwrite(0x0, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
 	}
 
-	pci_save_state(pdev);
-	pci_disable_device(pdev);
-	pci_set_power_state(pdev, pci_choose_state(pdev, state));
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
+static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
-	int err;
-
-	pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0);
-	err = pci_enable_device(pdev);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-	pci_restore_state(pdev);
 
 	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&bg->lock);
 
@@ -267,10 +255,8 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 
 	return 0;
 }
-#else
-#define bt8xxgpio_suspend NULL
-#define bt8xxgpio_resume NULL
-#endif /* CONFIG_PM */
+
+static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
 
 static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
 	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },
@@ -286,8 +272,7 @@ static struct pci_driver bt8xxgpio_pci_driver = {
 	.id_table	= bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl,
 	.probe		= bt8xxgpio_probe,
 	.remove		= bt8xxgpio_remove,
-	.suspend	= bt8xxgpio_suspend,
-	.resume		= bt8xxgpio_resume,
+	.driver.pm	= &bt8xxgpio_pm_ops,
 };
 
 module_pci_driver(bt8xxgpio_pci_driver);
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v5] gpio: bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Bjorn Helgaas 3 months, 3 weeks ago

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:52:59PM +0000, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> Switch to the new generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
> callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
> standard PCI related work like:
> 	- pci_save/restore_state()
> 	- pci_enable/disable_device()
> 	- pci_set_power_state()
> is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
> specific operations in its respective callback functions.

Tiny nits:

s/use generic PCI PM/use generic power management/  # subject; not PCI
s/new generic PCI power/generic power management/   # no longer "new" :)

> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c | 29 +++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> index 05401da03ca3..70b49c385b43 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> @@ -52,10 +52,8 @@ struct bt8xxgpio {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev;
>  	struct gpio_chip gpio;
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>  	u32 saved_outen;
>  	u32 saved_data;
> -#endif
>  };
>  
>  #define bgwrite(dat, adr)	writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
> @@ -224,9 +222,9 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	pci_disable_device(pdev);
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> -static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> +static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)

I think __maybe_unused is unnecessary because of this path:

  DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS
    _DEFINE_DEV_PM_OPS
      SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS
        pm_sleep_ptr
	  PTR_IF(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP), (_ptr))

Detailed explanation here:
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/util_macros.h?id=v6.17#n86

>  {
> +	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
>  
>  	scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &bg->lock) {

Unrelated to this patch, but it's not clear to me why bg->lock is
needed here (or maybe anywhere).

  $ git grep -l "static int.*_suspend" drivers/gpio | wc -l
  26
  $ git grep -W "static int.*_suspend" drivers/gpio | grep lock | grep -v unlock | wc -l

It looks like only about 8 of the 26 gpio drivers that implement
.suspend() protect it with a lock.  I would expect a lock to be needed
in all of them or none of them.

> @@ -238,23 +236,13 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
>  		bgwrite(0x0, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
>  	}
>  
> -	pci_save_state(pdev);
> -	pci_disable_device(pdev);
> -	pci_set_power_state(pdev, pci_choose_state(pdev, state));
> -
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>  {
> +	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> -	int err;
> -
> -	pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0);
> -	err = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> -	if (err)
> -		return err;
> -	pci_restore_state(pdev);
>  
>  	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&bg->lock);
>  
> @@ -267,10 +255,8 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -#else
> -#define bt8xxgpio_suspend NULL
> -#define bt8xxgpio_resume NULL
> -#endif /* CONFIG_PM */
> +
> +static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
>  
>  static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },
> @@ -286,8 +272,7 @@ static struct pci_driver bt8xxgpio_pci_driver = {
>  	.id_table	= bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl,
>  	.probe		= bt8xxgpio_probe,
>  	.remove		= bt8xxgpio_remove,
> -	.suspend	= bt8xxgpio_suspend,
> -	.resume		= bt8xxgpio_resume,
> +	.driver.pm	= &bt8xxgpio_pm_ops,
>  };
>  
>  module_pci_driver(bt8xxgpio_pci_driver);
> -- 
> 2.51.0
>

Re: [PATCH v5] gpio: bt8xx: use generic PCI PM

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 3 weeks ago

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 12:43:19PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:52:59PM +0000, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> > Switch to the new generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
> > callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
> > standard PCI related work like:
> > 	- pci_save/restore_state()
> > 	- pci_enable/disable_device()
> > 	- pci_set_power_state()
> > is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
> > specific operations in its respective callback functions.
> 
> Tiny nits:
> 
> s/use generic PCI PM/use generic power management/  # subject; not PCI
> s/new generic PCI power/generic power management/   # no longer "new" :)
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c | 29 +++++++----------------------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> > index 05401da03ca3..70b49c385b43 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> > @@ -52,10 +52,8 @@ struct bt8xxgpio {
> >  	struct pci_dev *pdev;
> >  	struct gpio_chip gpio;
> >  
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> >  	u32 saved_outen;
> >  	u32 saved_data;
> > -#endif
> >  };
> >  
> >  #define bgwrite(dat, adr)	writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
> > @@ -224,9 +222,9 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >  	pci_disable_device(pdev);
> >  }
> >  
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > -static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> > +static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> 
> I think __maybe_unused is unnecessary because of this path:
> 
>   DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS
>     _DEFINE_DEV_PM_OPS
>       SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS
>         pm_sleep_ptr
> 	  PTR_IF(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP), (_ptr))
> 
> Detailed explanation here:
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/util_macros.h?id=v6.17#n86
> 
Fixed them in v6.
> >  {
> > +	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> >  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >  
> >  	scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &bg->lock) {
> 
> Unrelated to this patch, but it's not clear to me why bg->lock is
> needed here (or maybe anywhere).
> 
>   $ git grep -l "static int.*_suspend" drivers/gpio | wc -l
>   26
>   $ git grep -W "static int.*_suspend" drivers/gpio | grep lock | grep -v unlock | wc -l
> 
> It looks like only about 8 of the 26 gpio drivers that implement
> .suspend() protect it with a lock.  I would expect a lock to be needed
> in all of them or none of them.
> 

I can have a look at them.

regards,
Vaibhav
> > @@ -238,23 +236,13 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> >  		bgwrite(0x0, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	pci_save_state(pdev);
> > -	pci_disable_device(pdev);
> > -	pci_set_power_state(pdev, pci_choose_state(pdev, state));
> > -
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > +static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > +	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> >  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > -	int err;
> > -
> > -	pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0);
> > -	err = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> > -	if (err)
> > -		return err;
> > -	pci_restore_state(pdev);
> >  
> >  	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&bg->lock);
> >  
> > @@ -267,10 +255,8 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > -#else
> > -#define bt8xxgpio_suspend NULL
> > -#define bt8xxgpio_resume NULL
> > -#endif /* CONFIG_PM */
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
> >  
> >  static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
> >  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },
> > @@ -286,8 +272,7 @@ static struct pci_driver bt8xxgpio_pci_driver = {
> >  	.id_table	= bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl,
> >  	.probe		= bt8xxgpio_probe,
> >  	.remove		= bt8xxgpio_remove,
> > -	.suspend	= bt8xxgpio_suspend,
> > -	.resume		= bt8xxgpio_resume,
> > +	.driver.pm	= &bt8xxgpio_pm_ops,
> >  };
> >  
> >  module_pci_driver(bt8xxgpio_pci_driver);
> > -- 
> > 2.51.0
> >

[PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Switch to the generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
standard PCI related work like:
	- pci_save/restore_state()
	- pci_enable/disable_device()
	- pci_set_power_state()
is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
specific operations in its respective callback functions.

Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c | 30 ++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
index 05401da03ca3..324eeb77dbd5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
@@ -52,10 +52,8 @@ struct bt8xxgpio {
 	struct pci_dev *pdev;
 	struct gpio_chip gpio;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
 	u32 saved_outen;
 	u32 saved_data;
-#endif
 };
 
 #define bgwrite(dat, adr)	writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
@@ -224,9 +222,10 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	pci_disable_device(pdev);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
-static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
+
+static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
 	scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &bg->lock) {
@@ -238,23 +237,13 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
 		bgwrite(0x0, BT848_GPIO_OUT_EN);
 	}
 
-	pci_save_state(pdev);
-	pci_disable_device(pdev);
-	pci_set_power_state(pdev, pci_choose_state(pdev, state));
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
+static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
-	int err;
-
-	pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0);
-	err = pci_enable_device(pdev);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-	pci_restore_state(pdev);
 
 	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&bg->lock);
 
@@ -267,10 +256,8 @@ static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 
 	return 0;
 }
-#else
-#define bt8xxgpio_suspend NULL
-#define bt8xxgpio_resume NULL
-#endif /* CONFIG_PM */
+
+static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
 
 static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
 	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },
@@ -286,8 +273,7 @@ static struct pci_driver bt8xxgpio_pci_driver = {
 	.id_table	= bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl,
 	.probe		= bt8xxgpio_probe,
 	.remove		= bt8xxgpio_remove,
-	.suspend	= bt8xxgpio_suspend,
-	.resume		= bt8xxgpio_resume,
+	.driver.pm	= &bt8xxgpio_pm_ops,
 };
 
 module_pci_driver(bt8xxgpio_pci_driver);
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Bartosz Golaszewski 3 months, 2 weeks ago

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>


On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 16:36:13 +0000, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> Switch to the generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
> callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
> standard PCI related work like:
> 	- pci_save/restore_state()
> 	- pci_enable/disable_device()
> 	- pci_set_power_state()
> is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
> specific operations in its respective callback functions.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management
      https://git.kernel.org/brgl/linux/c/d5376026f9269601e239545e2ec4aea0cc62bf2a

Best regards,
-- 
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Bartosz Golaszewski 3 months, 2 weeks ago

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 6:36 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Switch to the generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
> callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
> standard PCI related work like:
>         - pci_save/restore_state()
>         - pci_enable/disable_device()
>         - pci_set_power_state()
> is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
> specific operations in its respective callback functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
> ---

This says it's a v6 but I have no idea what changed since v1. Please
provide a changelog for every version when submitting patches.

Bjorn: does this look good to you?

Bartosz

Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Bjorn Helgaas 3 months, 2 weeks ago

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 10:48:48AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 6:36 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Switch to the generic PCI power management framework and remove legacy
> > callbacks like .suspend() and .resume(). With the generic framework, the
> > standard PCI related work like:
> >         - pci_save/restore_state()
> >         - pci_enable/disable_device()
> >         - pci_set_power_state()
> > is handled by the PCI core and this driver should implement only gpio-bt8xx
> > specific operations in its respective callback functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
> > ---
> 
> This says it's a v6 but I have no idea what changed since v1. Please
> provide a changelog for every version when submitting patches.
> 
> Bjorn: does this look good to you?

Yes, it looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>

FWIW, here's the diff from v1 to v6.  Mostly just iterating on
compile warning nits:

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
index e8d0c67bb618..324eeb77dbd5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
@@ -52,10 +52,8 @@ struct bt8xxgpio {
 	struct pci_dev *pdev;
 	struct gpio_chip gpio;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
 	u32 saved_outen;
 	u32 saved_data;
-#endif
 };
 
 #define bgwrite(dat, adr)	writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
@@ -224,7 +222,8 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	pci_disable_device(pdev);
 }
 
-static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
+
+static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
@@ -241,7 +240,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
+static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
 	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
@@ -258,7 +257,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
+static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
 
 static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
 	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },

Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 2 weeks ago

> > 
> > This says it's a v6 but I have no idea what changed since v1. Please
> > provide a changelog for every version when submitting patches.
> > 
> > Bjorn: does this look good to you?
> 
> Yes, it looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> 
> FWIW, here's the diff from v1 to v6.  Mostly just iterating on
> compile warning nits:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> index e8d0c67bb618..324eeb77dbd5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bt8xx.c
> @@ -52,10 +52,8 @@ struct bt8xxgpio {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev;
>  	struct gpio_chip gpio;
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>  	u32 saved_outen;
>  	u32 saved_data;
> -#endif
>  };
>  
>  #define bgwrite(dat, adr)	writel((dat), bg->mmio+(adr))
> @@ -224,7 +222,8 @@ static void bt8xxgpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	pci_disable_device(pdev);
>  }
>  
> -static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +
> +static int bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> @@ -241,7 +240,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> +static int bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>  	struct bt8xxgpio *bg = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> @@ -258,7 +257,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused bt8xxgpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
> +static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(bt8xxgpio_pm_ops, bt8xxgpio_suspend, bt8xxgpio_resume);
>  
>  static const struct pci_device_id bt8xxgpio_pci_tbl[] = {
>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROOKTREE, PCI_DEVICE_ID_BT848) },

Hello Bjorn!
Thanks for the review and mentioning the diff between v1 and v6.

Hey Randy!
Please let me know if the diff mentioned by Bjorn is enough or should I send a
new patch-mail describing the v1-v6 diff?

Best regards,
Vaibhav

Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Bartosz Golaszewski 3 months, 2 weeks ago

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:49 AM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Bjorn!
> Thanks for the review and mentioning the diff between v1 and v6.
>
> Hey Randy!
> Please let me know if the diff mentioned by Bjorn is enough or should I send a
> new patch-mail describing the v1-v6 diff?
>

Yes, it's enough, I could have looked it up myself but I shouldn't
have to. Please, next time just list changes under each new iteration.
Preferably just use b4, it helps with version management.

Bart

Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: bt8xx: use generic power management

Posted by Vaibhav Gupta 3 months, 2 weeks ago

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 09:55:39AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:49 AM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Bjorn!
> > Thanks for the review and mentioning the diff between v1 and v6.
> >
> > Hey Randy!
> > Please let me know if the diff mentioned by Bjorn is enough or should I send a
> > new patch-mail describing the v1-v6 diff?
> >
> 
> Yes, it's enough, I could have looked it up myself but I shouldn't
> have to. Please, next time just list changes under each new iteration.
> Preferably just use b4, it helps with version management.
> 
> Bart

Noted. My patches will be more clear from next time. Thanks for the reviews and
comments.

- Vaibhav