From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::241]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1dGfRc-00073a-6H for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:48:21 +0000 Received: by mail-pf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id n23so11376804pfb.3 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 22:47:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170602052832.h7kf3jtabx5zp3uo@pengutronix.de> References: <20170530145228.18655-1-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20170530145228.18655-3-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20170601071934.oxscwirivn7c2a4b@pengutronix.de> <20170602052832.h7kf3jtabx5zp3uo@pengutronix.de> From: Andrey Smirnov Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 22:47:58 -0700 Message-ID: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] gpiolib: Add code to support "active low" GPIOs To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Nikita Yushchenko , "barebox@lists.infradead.org" , Chris Healy On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:33:55PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 07:52:26AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote: >> >> So far this particular aspect of various DT-bindings has been handled >> >> on a per-driver basis. With this change, hopefully, we'll have a >> >> single place to handle necessary logic inversions and eventually >> >> would be able to migrate existing users as well as avoiding adding >> >> redundant code to new drivers. >> >> >> >> Cc: cphealy@gmail.com >> >> Cc: Nikita Yushchenko >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov >> >> --- >> >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> >> include/gpio.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> >> index 1f57c76..36d8874 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(chip_list); >> >> struct gpio_info { >> >> struct gpio_chip *chip; >> >> bool requested; >> >> + bool active_low; >> >> char *label; >> >> }; >> >> >> >> @@ -45,6 +46,15 @@ static struct gpio_info *gpio_to_desc(unsigned gpio) >> >> return NULL; >> >> } >> >> >> >> +static int gpio_adjust_value(struct gpio_info *gi, >> >> + int value) >> >> +{ >> >> + if (value < 0) >> >> + return value; >> >> + >> >> + return !!value ^ gi->active_low; >> >> +} >> >> + >> >> int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label) >> >> { >> >> struct gpio_info *gi = gpio_to_desc(gpio); >> >> @@ -69,6 +79,7 @@ int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label) >> >> } >> >> >> >> gi->requested = true; >> >> + gi->active_low = false; >> >> gi->label = xstrdup(label); >> >> >> >> done: >> >> @@ -93,6 +104,7 @@ void gpio_free(unsigned gpio) >> >> gi->chip->ops->free(gi->chip, gpio - gi->chip->base); >> >> >> >> gi->requested = false; >> >> + gi->active_low = false; >> >> free(gi->label); >> >> gi->label = NULL; >> >> } >> >> @@ -111,10 +123,15 @@ int gpio_request_one(unsigned gpio, unsigned long flags, const char *label) >> >> if (err) >> >> return err; >> >> >> >> + if (flags & GPIOF_ACTIVE_LOW) { >> >> + struct gpio_info *gi = gpio_to_desc(gpio); >> >> + gi->active_low = true; >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> if (flags & GPIOF_DIR_IN) >> >> err = gpio_direction_input(gpio); >> >> else >> >> - err = gpio_direction_output(gpio, >> >> + err = gpio_direction_active(gpio, >> >> (flags & GPIOF_INIT_HIGH) ? 1 : 0); >> > >> > And here things get messy. >> > >> > For me 'high' and 'low' represent the physical values of a GPIO whereas >> > "active" and "inactive" represent the logical values of a GPIO. The flag >> > is named GPIOF_INIT_*HIGH*, not GPIOF_INIT_*ACTIVE*, which means a GPIO >> > with this flag should get the physical 'high' value, not the logical >> > 'active' value. >> > >> > They goofed the binding in the kernel, so I'm afraid there's nothing we >> > can do about this :( >> >> So do we want to: >> >> a) Keep things as is in v2(I am assuming that is not really an option) >> b) Improve the optics by introducing GPIOF_INIT_ACTIVE, but keeping >> the behavior of hog nodes consistent with Linux kernel > > We must keep the behaviour consistent with the Kernel, everything else > is not an option. A GPIOF_INIT_ACTIVE flag sounds like a good idea. The > place where "output-[high|low]" is translated into this flag seems a > good place to put a big comment what is going on. > Sounds good. I'll update the patchset accordingly. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox