Re: [PATCH 2/4] gpiolib: Add code to support "active low" GPIOs

[Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:30:27AM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko 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.
>>
>> Do we have at least single case when same pin of the same chip is active
>> high in one use and active low in other use?
>>
>> I'd say that "logic values" of gpiolib is a major source of confusion,
>> at least in it's current form. The fact that
>>   gpio_set_value(..., 1)
>> does not set gpio value to 1 but instead sets gpio value to what is
>> configured as active, is non-intuitive at least. Maybe with different
>> API names (e.g. gpio_activate() / gpio_deactivate()) it could be better.
>
> Plain gpio_set_value() in Linux does not honour any ACTIVE_LOW flags,
> only gpiod_set_value() does. But anyway, you are right, it *is*
> confusing. I agree that we should have a different set of functions
> which honour the ACTIVE_LOW flag. Besides of being more consistent
> in the end I think it's the only way to not break any existing gpio
> setups in barebox. With a different API set we can review each driver
> change for unwanted side effects.

Sounds reasonable. I'll add the API and convert the rest of the
patches to use it appropriately in v2 of the patch.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox