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
