Re: Bug in mipi_dbi_hw_reset() causes incorrect DT entries

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 12:51:29PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/03/2025 16:20, Alex Lanzano wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > There is a bug in the mipi_dbi_hw_reset() function that handles the
> > reset logic of the controller. Currently, it will set the reset gpio
> > value to 0, wait a specified time, then set the reset gpio value to 1.
> > 
> > The issue with this implementation is that the MIPI DBI spec states that
> > the reset signal is active low. So, in order to correct for this logic,
> > the developer needs to incorrectly define the reset gpio as active high
> > in the DT.
> 
> You should address it to driver and subsystem maintainers. Instead you
> skipped all maintainers but Cc-ed people who have nothing to do with
> MIPI DBI drivers in the kernel.
> 

My apologies. I wanted to get the advice from you and the other device
tree maintainers since I was proposing a new device property to address
this issue. CC'ing them on the thread now.

> > 
> > Fixing the logic in the driver would cause all the displays using this
> > driver downstream to stop working. To mitigate this, Josef and I were
> > thinking about adding an additional boolean property to the DT that when
> > present would use the correct reset logic in the driver. And if it's not
> > present use the current reset logic and print out a warning that this
> > reset logic is deprecated.
> > 
> > The overall plan would be to have this temporary fix for a few release
> > cycles so downstream has time to be aware of the issue and update their
> > DT. Eventually, we would remove the incorrect reset logic in the driver
> > and this addtional boolean property.
> 
> That's an ABI now, so you cannot change it without affecting users. Code
> is from 2018 so you have plenty of users now.
> 
> I did some workaround for wsa88xx speakers but that's an exception and
> it should not necessarily be a pattern to follow.
> 
> Not sure if it the issue is worth changing considering the impact.
> 

Makes sense, I'm just a bit concerned about the device tree definitions
not being compatible across different platforms.

Best regards,
Alex



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux