linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] extcon: gpio: Convert the driver to use gpio desc API's

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:14:03 +0900
From:	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To:	George Cherian <george.cherian@...com>
Cc:	robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, grant.likely@...aro.org,
	rongjun.ying@....com, linux@...ck-us.net,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] extcon: gpio: Convert the driver to use gpio desc API's

On 09/22/2014 06:51 PM, George Cherian wrote:
> 
> On 09/22/2014 01:37 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi George,
>>
>> This patch removes 'gpio_active_low' field of struct gpio_extcon_data.
>> But, include/linux/extcon-gpio.h has the description of 'gpio_active_low' field.
> Yes didn't want the platform data users to break.
> Actually I couldn't find any platform users for this driver. Could you please point me to
> one if in case I missed it. If non present then why cant we get rid of platform data altogether.

Right,
But, Why do you support platform data on as following your patch?
- [PATCH 3/5] extcon: gpio: Add dt support for the driver.
According to your comment, you had to remove the support for platform data.

IMO,
I think this patchset must need to reorder the sequence of patchset.
Also, this patchset is more detailed description.

>>
>> Also,
>> This patch has not included the any description/comment of removing 'gpio_active_low'.
>>
>> Also,
>> How to set 'FLAG_ACTIVE_LOW' bit for gpio when using platform data?
> Now that we are using gpiod_* API's  we need not check for gpio_active_low from this driver.

This patch just use gpiod API instead of legacy gpio API.

I think that if extcon-gpio don't need to check gpio_activ_low field,
you have to implement dt support patch before this patch.

> 
>> This patch don't call 'set_bit()' function to set FLAG_ACTIVE_LOW flag.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chanwoo Choi
>>
>> On 09/09/2014 01:14 PM, George Cherian wrote:
>>> Convert the driver to use gpiod_* API's.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: George Cherian <george.cherian@...com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c | 18 +++++++-----------
>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c
>>> index 72f19a3..25269f6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-gpio.c
>>> @@ -33,8 +33,7 @@
>>>     struct gpio_extcon_data {
>>>       struct extcon_dev *edev;
>>> -    unsigned gpio;
>>> -    bool gpio_active_low;
>>> +    struct gpio_desc *gpiod;
>>>       const char *state_on;
>>>       const char *state_off;
>>>       int irq;
>>> @@ -50,9 +49,7 @@ static void gpio_extcon_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>           container_of(to_delayed_work(work), struct gpio_extcon_data,
>>>                    work);
>>>   -    state = gpio_get_value(data->gpio);
>>> -    if (data->gpio_active_low)
>>> -        state = !state;
>>> +    state = gpiod_get_value(data->gpiod);
>>>       extcon_set_state(data->edev, state);
>>>   }
>>>   @@ -106,22 +103,21 @@ static int gpio_extcon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>       }
>>>       extcon_data->edev->name = pdata->name;
>>>   -    extcon_data->gpio = pdata->gpio;
>>> -    extcon_data->gpio_active_low = pdata->gpio_active_low;
>>> +    extcon_data->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(pdata->gpio);
>>>       extcon_data->state_on = pdata->state_on;
>>>       extcon_data->state_off = pdata->state_off;
>>>       extcon_data->check_on_resume = pdata->check_on_resume;
>>>       if (pdata->state_on && pdata->state_off)
>>>           extcon_data->edev->print_state = extcon_gpio_print_state;
>>>   -    ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&pdev->dev, extcon_data->gpio, GPIOF_DIR_IN,
>>> +    ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&pdev->dev, pdata->gpio, GPIOF_DIR_IN,
>>>                       pdev->name);
>>>       if (ret < 0)
>>>           return ret;
>>>         if (pdata->debounce) {
>>> -        ret = gpio_set_debounce(extcon_data->gpio,
>>> -                    pdata->debounce * 1000);
>>> +        ret = gpiod_set_debounce(extcon_data->gpiod,
>>> +                     pdata->debounce * 1000);
>>>           if (ret < 0)
>>>               extcon_data->debounce_jiffies =
>>>                   msecs_to_jiffies(pdata->debounce);
>>> @@ -133,7 +129,7 @@ static int gpio_extcon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>         INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&extcon_data->work, gpio_extcon_work);
>>>   -    extcon_data->irq = gpio_to_irq(extcon_data->gpio);
>>> +    extcon_data->irq = gpiod_to_irq(extcon_data->gpiod);
>>>       if (extcon_data->irq < 0)
>>>           return extcon_data->irq;
>>>  
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/