Hi Linus,
On 10/09/19 1:17 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:58 AM Harish Jenny K N
> <harish_kandiga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Rob, Hi Linus,
>>
>>
>> On 30/08/19 10:51 AM, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/08/19 1:17 PM, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19/08/19 3:06 PM, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/08/19 2:21 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 5:15 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is some level of ambition here which is inherently a bit fuzzy
>>>>>>>> around the edges. ("How long is the coast of Britain?" comes to mind.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surely the intention of device tree is not to recreate the schematic
>>>>>>>> in all detail. What we want is a model of the hardware that will
>>>>>>>> suffice for the operating system usecases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But sometimes the DTS files will become confusing: why is this
>>>>>>>> component using GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW when another system
>>>>>>>> doesn't have that flag? If there is an explicit inverter, the
>>>>>>>> DTS gets more readable for a human.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But arguable that is case for adding inverters as syntactic
>>>>>>>> sugar in the DTS compiler instead...
>>>>>>> If you really want something more explicit, then add a new GPIO
>>>>>>> 'inverted' flag. Then a device can always have the same HIGH/LOW flag.
>>>>>>> That also solves the abstract it for userspace problem.
>>>>>> I think there are some intricate ontologies at work here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider this example: a GPIO is controlling a chip select
>>>>>> regulator, say Acme Foo. The chip select
>>>>>> has a pin named CSN. We know from convention that the
>>>>>> "N" at the end of that pin name means "negative" i.e. active
>>>>>> low, and that is how the electronics engineers think about
>>>>>> that chip select line: it activates the IC when
>>>>>> the line goes low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The regulator subsystem and I think all subsystems in the
>>>>>> Linux kernel say the consumer pin should be named and
>>>>>> tagged after the datsheet of the regulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it has for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> foo {
>>>>>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>>>>>> cs-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (It would be inappropriate to name it "csn-gpios" since
>>>>>> we have an established flag for active low. But it is another
>>>>>> of these syntactic choices where people likely do mistakes.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would be appropriate for the DT binding to say
>>>>>> that this flag must always be GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW since
>>>>>> the bindings are seen from the component point of view,
>>>>>> and thus this is always active low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would even be reasonable for a yaml schema to enfore
>>>>>> this, if it could. It is defined as active low after all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now if someone adds an inverter on that line between
>>>>>> gpio0 and Acme Foo it looks like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> foo {
>>>>>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>>>>>> cs-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now we get cognitive dissonance or whatever I should
>>>>>> call it: someone reading this DTS sheet and the data
>>>>>> sheet for the component Acme Foo to troubleshoot
>>>>>> this will be confused: this component has CS active
>>>>>> low and still it is specified as active high? Unless they
>>>>>> also look at the schematic or the board and find the
>>>>>> inverter things are pretty muddy and they will likely curse
>>>>>> and solve the situation with the usual trial-and-error,
>>>>>> inserting some random cursewords as a comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With an intermediate inverter node, the cs-gpios
>>>>>> can go back to GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW and follow
>>>>>> the bindings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> inv0: inverter {
>>>>>> compatible = "gpio-inverter";
>>>>>> gpio-controller;
>>>>>> #gpio-cells = <1>;
>>>>>> inverted-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> foo {
>>>>>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>>>>>> cs-gpios = <&inv0 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now Acme Foo bindings can keep enforcing cs-gpios
>>>>>> to always be tagged GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW.
>>>>> Can you please review/let us know your opinion on this ? I think the idea here is to also isolate the changes to a separate consumer driver and avoid getting inversions inside gpiolib.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Harish Jenny K N
>>>>>
>>>> Can you please comment on this ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Harish Jenny K N
>>>>
>>> Friendly Reminder.
>>>
>>> can we please finalize this ?
> I think I have made my position clear and don't really have more to
> add. I'm simply not convinced of the need for this. An inverter is not
> a GPIO controller. You can't set/get or do any control. It is already
> possible to invert GPIO lines in DT by changing the flags and it has
> been this way for decades.
>
> Rob
If Rob is fine with adding "inverted" flag in the device tree, can we just go back the initial approach of
defining the polarity on the producer side?
With this we would need something like this in the device tree for any gpiochip controller.
inverted = /bits/ 8 <0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0>;
RFC patch sent earlier can be found here. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-gpio/msg38815.html ( Note: various terms would need change)
I can send another patchset if you agree.
Please let us know your suggestion.
Thanks,
Harish Jenny K N
