linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: Use GPIO polarity to generate correct reset sequence

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3fbc4e67-b931-421c-9d83-2214aaa2f6ed@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 21:17:23 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Chen Minqiang <ptpt52@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	"Chester A. Unal" <chester.a.unal@...nc9.com>,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
	DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
	Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: Use GPIO polarity to generate
 correct reset sequence

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 10:07:31AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 02:11:05AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > -		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->reset, 0);
> > > +		int is_active_low = !!gpiod_is_active_low(priv->reset);
> > > +		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->reset, is_active_low);
> > 
> > I think you did not correctly understand what Russell said. You pass
> > the logical value to gpiod_set_value(). If the GPIO has been marked as
> > active LOW, the GPIO core will invert the logical values to the raw
> > value. You should not be using gpiod_is_active_low().
> > 
> > But as i said to the previous patch, i would just leave everything as
> > it is, except document the issue.
> > 
> > 	Andrew
> > 
> 
> It was my suggestion to do it like this (but I don't understand why I'm
> again not in CC).
> 
> We _know_ that the reset pin of the switch should be active low. So by
> using gpiod_is_active_low(), we can determine whether the device tree is
> wrong or not, and we can work with a wrong device tree too (just invert
> the logical values).

Assuming there is not a NOT gate placed between the GPIO and the reset
pin, because the board designer decided to do that for some reason?

So lets work on the commit message some more, but i'm still not
convinced it is worth the effort, unless there is some board today
which really is broken and cannot be fixed unless a change like this
is made.

	Andrew