Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/4] ASoC: s3c64xx/smartq: use dynamic registration

[Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/15/2014 09:36 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday 14 July 2014 19:36:24 Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 08:23:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday 14 July 2014 18:18:12 Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. But now that you say it the gpiod_direction_output() call is
>>>>>> missing
>>>>>> from this patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm lost now. The GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH I added comes from
>>>>> Documentation/gpio/board.txt
>>>>> and as Linus Walleij explained to me the other day, the lookup is
>>>>> supposed
>>>>> to replace devm_gpio_request_one(), which in turn replaced both the
>>>>> gpio_request and the gpio_direction_output(). Do I need to put the
>>>>> gpiod_direction_output() back or is there another interface for that
>>>>> when
>>>>> registering the board gpios?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.  If you *do* need an explicit _output() then that sounds to me
>>>> like we either need a gpiod_get_one() or an extension to the table,
>>>> looking at the code it seems like this is indeed the case.  We can set
>>>> if the GPIO is active high/low, or open source/drain but there's no flag
>>>> for the initial state.
>>>
>>>
>>> (adding Alexandre and the gpio list)
>>>
>>> GPIO people: any guidance on how a board file should set a gpio to
>>> output/default-high in a GPIO_LOOKUP() table to replace a
>>> devm_gpio_request_one() call in a device driver with devm_gpiod_get()?
>>> Do we need to add an interface extension to do this, e.g. passing
>>> GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH as the flags rather than GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH?
>>
>>
>> The way I see it, GPIO mappings (whether they are done using the
>> lookup tables, DT, or ACPI) should only care about details that are
>> relevant to the device layout and that should be abstracted to the
>> driver (e.g. whether the GPIO is active low or open drain) so drivers
>> do not need to check X conditions every time they want to drive the
>> GPIO.
>>
>> Direction and initial value, on the other hand, are clearly properties
>> that ought to be set by the driver itself. Thus my expectation here
>> would be that the driver sets the GPIO direction and initial value as
>> soon as it gets it using gpiod_direction_output(). In other words,
>> there is no replacement for gpio_request_one() with the gpiod
>> interface. Is there any use-case that cannot be covered by calling
>> gpiod_direction_output() right after gpiod_get()? AFAICT this is what
>> gpio_request_one() was doing anyway.
>
>
> I agree with you that this is something that should be done in the driver
> and not in the lookup table. I think that it is still a good idea to have a
> replacement for gpio_request_one with the new GPIO descriptor API. A large
> share of the drivers want to call either gpio_direction_input() or
> gpio_direction_output() right after requesting the GPIO. Combining both the
> requesting and the configuration of the GPIO into one function call makes
> the code a bit shorter and also simplifies the error handling. Even more so
> if e.g. the GPIO is optional. This was one of the main reasons why
> gpio_request_one was introduced, see the commit[1] that added it.

I am not opposed to it as a convenience function. Note that since the
open-source and open-drain flags are already handled by the lookup
table, the only flags it should handle are those related to direction,
value, and (maybe) sysfs export.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html