Adding Tomasz in CC in case he wants to share more info about the device. On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:31 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:37 PM Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:38 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 06:17:57PM +0100, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > > > On the current implementation we only support active_high polarity for > > > > GpioInt. > > > > > > > > There can be cases where a GPIO has active_low polarity and it is also a > > > > IRQ source. > > > > > > > > De-couple the irq_polarity and active_low fields instead of re-use it. > > > > > > > > With this patch we support ACPI devices such as: > > > > > > Is it real device on the market?! > > > > Yes, it is a chromebook. > > You mean it's already on sale with this broken table?! I do not agree that it is broken. It follows the current standard ;) > > > > This table is broken. _DSD GPIO active_low is only for GpioIo(). > > > > AFAIK the format of the _DSD is not in the ACPI standard. We have > > decided its fields. (please correct me if I am wrong here) > > _DSD is a concept that is part of the spec, but each UUID and its > application is out of scope indeed. > > GPIO application to _DSD is described in the in-kernel documentation. > Thanks for pointing out the issues it has. > > > On the other mail I have described why we need to make use of the > > active_low on a GpioInt() > > > > If there is another way of describing ActiveBoth + inverted polarity > > please let me know and I will go that way. > > I answered it there, please, continue this topic there. > NAK to the proposed change. > > > > If it is a ChromeBook, please fix the firmware. Lets agree what is the best way to describe in acpi my usecase and I will implement it. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko -- Ricardo Ribalda
