[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201201171153.GM5239@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:11:53 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Discussions about the Letux Kernel
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] SPI broken for SPI based panel drivers
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 05:41:54PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > Am 01.12.2020 um 17:20 schrieb Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>:
> > I think the problem here is more to do with where we started than where
> > we're going or how we got there - things have been glued together or
> > happened to work in ways that mean I'm not sure we reasonably understand
> > the situation we started from or all the requirements it has. As you
> > say I'm not sure anything beyond throwing the API away and starting
> > afresh would really help here, but that's not really how we tend to do
> > things for a bunch of very good reasons.
> I think the key problem is GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH 0 and GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW 1
> in device tree blobs. But that is so fundamental that we have to live with it.
> So I guess that even a new API from scratch wouldn't improve that.
Yeah, that's definitely part of it - more generally there's multiple
places trying to determine if the signal is inverted with different
interactions/expectations. Having it in an ABI definitely contributes a
lot to causing trouble though.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists