On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 04:26:25 PM Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > GPIO descriptors are the preferred way over legacy GPIO numbers >> > nowadays. Convert the driver to use GPIO descriptors internally but >> > still allow passing legacy GPIO numbers from platform data to support >> > existing platforms. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Acked-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Acked-by: Bryan Wu <cooloney@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> >> (...) >> >> > if (led_dat->blinking) { >> > - led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(led_dat->gpio, >> > - led_dat->new_level, >> > - NULL, NULL); >> > + int gpio = desc_to_gpio(led_dat->gpiod); >> > + int level = led_dat->new_level; >> >> So this desc_to_gpio() is done only to call the legacy callback below? >> >> > + if (gpiod_is_active_low(led_dat->gpiod)) >> > + level = !level; >> >> And that leads to making it necessary to have this helper variable >> to invert the level since that callback does not pass a descriptor >> (which would inherently know if it's active low).... >> >> > + >> > + led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(gpio, level, NULL, NULL); >> >> Is it *really* impossible to change all the users of this callback? > > You said it could be done in a followup patch. Here: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=141154536921643&w=4 > > And Mika said he would add that to his TODO list: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=141155173924101&w=4 > > I suppose that is still valid. Yes, I *can* be done as follow up, and I still *prefer* that it be fixed now. Otherwise I wouldn't keep commenting on it. >> > + led_dat->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(template->gpio); >> > + if (IS_ERR(led_dat->gpiod)) >> > + return PTR_ERR(led_dat->gpiod); >> > } >> >> OK so this is the legacy codepath: point it out in a big fat >> comment that this is the legacy codepath. > > That looks like it could be done in a followup patch too. That's not so much work that it can't be done now. The follow-up patch I mean. > Since the series is in my linux-next branch at this point, I really wouldn't > like to reshuffle commits in it if that can be avoided. That's OK if we just get the follow-up stuff now (the comment patch immediately!), not in 18 months. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html