[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <ED6A6797-D1F9-473B-ABFF-B6951A924BC1@goldelico.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:59:19 +0200
From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Discussions about the Letux Kernel <letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
BenoƮt Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [Letux-kernel] [PATCH 2/2] DTS: ARM: gta04: introduce legacy spi-cs-high to make display work again
ping.
Device omap3-gta04 is neither working with v5.3 nor linux-next quite a while and we need a solution.
> Am 31.08.2019 um 08:48 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:29:19 +0200
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:43 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:23 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I tried to convince Linus that this is the right way but he convinced
>>>> me that a fix that handles all cases does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> There seem to be embedded devices with older DTB (potentially in ROM)
>>>> which provide a plain 0 value for a gpios definition. And either with
>>>> or without spi-cs-high.
>>>>
>>>> Since "0" is the same as "GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH", the absence of
>>>> spi-cs-high was and must be interpreted as active low for these
>>>> devices. This leads to the inversion logic in code.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIR it boils down to the question if gpiolib and the bindings
>>>> should still support such legacy devices with out-of tree DTB,
>>>> but force in-tree DTS to add the legacy spi-cs-high property.
>>>>
>>>> Or if we should fix the 2 or 3 cases of in-tree legacy cases
>>>> and potentially break out-of tree DTBs.
>>>
>>> If it is small number of platforms, then the kernel could handle those
>>> cases explicitly as needed.
>>>
>>>> IMHO it is more general to keep the out-of-tree DTBs working
>>>> and "fix" what we can control (in-tree DTS).
>>>
>>> If we do this, then we need to not call spi-cs-high legacy because
>>> we're stuck with it forever.
>>
>> I agree. The background on it is here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/2/4
>>
>> Not using the negatively defined (i.e. if it is no there, the line is
>> by default active low) spi-cs-high would break
>> PowerPC, who were AFAICT using this to ship devices.
>>
> is this thing now just waiting for someone to do a s/legacy//?
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists