[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b11a42d83dfe77215bafae1d116375ee2398ae6.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 17:41:48 +0100
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, nuno.sa@...log.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
Olivier MOYSAN <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] iio: adc: ad9467: fix reset gpio handling
On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 15:15 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 09:36:47 +0100
> Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 11:01 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:47 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 15:41 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 4:17 AM Nuno Sa via B4 Relay
> > > > > <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reset gpio was being requested with GPIOD_OUT_LOW which means, not
> > > > > > asserted. Then it was being asserted but never de-asserted which means
> > > > > > the devices was left in reset. Fix it by de-asserting the gpio.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could be helpful to update the devicetree bindings to state the
> > > > > expected active-high or active-low setting for this gpio so it is
> > > > > clear which state means asserted.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You could state that the chip is active low but I don't see that change that
> > > > important for now. Not sure if this is clear and maybe that's why your
> > > > comment.
> > > > GPIOD_OUT_HIGH has nothing to do with active high or low. It just means, "get
> > > > me
> > > > the
> > > > pin in the asserted state".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would assume that this bug happened in the first place because
> > > someone forgot GPIOD_OUT_LOW in the devicetree when they were
> > > developing the driver. So this is why I suggested that updating the
> > > devicetree binding docs so that future users are less likely to make
> > > the same mistake. Currently, the bindings don't even have reset-gpios
> > > in the examples.
> >
> > Hmm, I think you're missing the point... The bug has nothing to do with
> > devicetree.
> > This is what was happening:
> >
> > 1) We were calling devm_gpiod_get_optional() with GPIOD_OUT_LOW. What this means
> > is
> > that you get an output gpio deasserted. Hence the device is out of reset. And
> > here is
> > the important part... what you have in dts does not matter. If you have active
> > low,
> > it means the pin level will be 1. If you have high, the pin level is 0. And this
> > is
> > all handled by gpiolib for you.
> >
> > 2) Then, we called gpiod_direction_output(..., 1), which means set the direction
> > out
> > (which is actually not needed since it was already done when getting the pin) and
> > assert the pin. Hence, reset the device. And we were never de-asserting the pin
> > so
> > the device would be left in reset.
>
> Functionally I believe David is correct. Flipping the DT would 'fix' this.
> It's all down to a nreset vs reset pin description.
>
Ahh I see. Well would not really be a fix :)
- Nuno Sá
Powered by blists - more mailing lists