lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] staging: wfx: fix reset GPIO polarity
Date
On Thursday 5 December 2019 15:49:55 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:08:23PM +0000, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 4 December 2019 17:59:46 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > Driver inverts meaning of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW/HIGH. Fix it to prevent
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > index ab0cda1e124f..73d0157a86ba 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > @@ -199,9 +199,9 @@ static int wfx_spi_probe(struct spi_device *func)
> > > if (!bus->gpio_reset) {
> > > dev_warn(&func->dev, "try to load firmware anyway\n");
> > > } else {
> > > - gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > - udelay(100);
> > > gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 1);
> > > + udelay(100);
> > > + gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > udelay(2000);
> > > }
> > Hello Michał,
> >
> > I did not find real consensus in kernel code. My personal taste would
> > be to keep this gpio "ACTIVE_HIGH" and rename it gpio_nreset. What do
> > you think about it?
> >
> > (in add, this solution would explicitly change the name of the DT
> > attribute instead of changing the semantic of the existing attribute)
>
> As a user (board developer) I would expect that DT describes the
> GPIO meaning directly: so when I specify GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH flag I also
> wire up the board so that outputing 1 would match the active state of
> the chip's signal (that might be inverted for some reason). I think we
> should stick to what is said in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio.txt
> (section 1.1).
>
> Since this is a new driver in kernel I would prefer to fix it at the start.
> Changing the name of the GPIO would also be ok, but since there is no DT
> binding yet, I guess there will come up an issue of 'compatible' string
> format that does not match 'vendor,chip' now, so we can use the difference
> for backwards compatibility with out-of-tree driver if needed.

Current 'compatible' string is "silabs,wfx-spi" (for now, it is the
same for out-of-tree and in-tree driver). And indeed, "wfx" does not
names a chip.

The three chips currently supported are wf200, wf200s and wfm200. Since
the driver provides DT bindings for SPI and SDIO buses, I think we
have to keep the "-spi" suffix. So compatible strings should be
"silabs,wf200-spi", "silabs,wf200s-spi" and "silabs,wfm200-spi", right?

So we could fix the semantic of gpios-reset and keep the backward
compatibility. Looks perfect.

I can make this change in my next pull-request (but if you submit a
patch, it will probably go faster :) ).

--
Jérôme Pouiller

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-05 16:44    [W:0.040 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site