Re: [libgpiod][PATCH 0/3] bindings: python: more flexible reconfigure_lines()

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 09:34:52AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:38 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This series addresses issue #54[1], making reconfigure_lines() less
> > restrictive in the configurations it will accept, allowing for
> > misordered configurations and reconfiguring a subset of lines.
> >
> > Patch 1 adds a set of tests for the new behaviour.  These all fail with
> > the existing bindings, but pass after patch 2 is applied.
> >
> > Patch 2 is the change to reconfigure_lines() itself.
> >
> > The reconfiguration of a subset of lines works better with a change to the
> > kernel to ignore reconfiguration of lines without a direction set,
> > i.e. a default LineSettings.
> > With existing kernels, if a line has been requested with flags set to
> > non-default values those flags will be reset to default values, though
> > that may not become evident electrically until subsequent operations are
> > performed on the line.
> >
> > Patch 3 extends the tests to demonstrate that kernel issue.  A kernel
> > patch addressing that issue has been submitted[2], and the test passes
> > with that patch applied.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kent.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/brgl/libgpiod/issues/54
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20240626052925.174272-3-warthog618@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Kent Gibson (3):
> >   bindings: python: tests: extend reconfiguration tests
> >   bindings: python: more flexible reconfigure_lines()
> >   bindings: python: tests: add coverage of kernel reconfigure as-is
> >     behaviour
> >
> >  bindings/python/gpiod/line_request.py       | 17 +++---
> >  bindings/python/tests/tests_line_request.py | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
>
> FYI I did not forget about this series - I'm just waiting for the next
> stable kernel release so that changes required for the new test cases
> to pass become available.
>

No problem - I assumed that was the case.

Cheers,
Kent.