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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:44:21 +0530
From:	George Cherian <george.cherian@...com>
To:	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.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 09/23/2014 04:44 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> 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.
My intention with this series was to add dt support by keeping the 
existing platform data.
Now that we know there are no platform data users I will rework on this 
and keep only dt
support.
>
> IMO,
> I think this patchset must need to reorder the sequence of patchset.
> Also, this patchset is more detailed description.
I will rework and submit a v2.
>>> 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.
yes will do in v2

Thanks for your review.
>>> 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;
>>>>   
>>

-George
--
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/