[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYVGR0Wj9zS9cuS3qa_tNZHE1t95wQ-4MXAEL6s_4jdFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:31:48 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
Harvey Hunt <harveyhuntnexus@...il.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mmc: slot-gpio: use gpiod_set_active_[low|high]()
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:39 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:24 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:50 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > We have new, less cumbersome and clearer interfaces for controlling GPIO
> > > polarity. Use them in the MMC code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> >
> > I like the looks of the code better, obviously but this looks like this for
> > a reason unfortunately.
> >
> > See the following from
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml:
> >
> > # CD and WP lines can be implemented on the hardware in one of two
> > # ways: as GPIOs, specified in cd-gpios and wp-gpios properties, or
> > # as dedicated pins. Polarity of dedicated pins can be specified,
> > # using *-inverted properties. GPIO polarity can also be specified
> > # using the GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW flag. This creates an ambiguity in the
> > # latter case. We choose to use the XOR logic for GPIO CD and WP
> > # lines. This means, the two properties are "superimposed," for
> > # example leaving the GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW flag clear and specifying the
> > # respective *-inverted property property results in a
> > # double-inversion and actually means the "normal" line polarity is
> > # in effect.
> >
>
> I hate it, thanks. :)
>
> > Will you still provide the desired "double inversion" after this patch?
> >
>
> Not in the current form. Would it work to go:
>
> if (override_active_level) {
> if (!(host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH))
> gpiod_set_active_high(desc);
> else
> gpiod_set_active_low(desc);
> } else {
> if (host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH)
> gpiod_set_active_high(desc);
> else
> gpiod_set_active_low(desc);
> }
>
> ?
I *think* so but my boolean parser i known to be flawed since I have
screwed up double inversions repeatedly over the years, so it should
not be trusted at all.
> Alternatively we could reimplement the toggle semantics locally in a
> helper function in order to get rid of it from GPIOLIB.
I don't know about that, the flag is inside gpio_desc so we cannot
access it (struct is private to gpiolib...)
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists