Re: [PATCH 0/4] add support for bias pull-disable

[Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2022-07-19 at 11:14 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:51 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2022-07-19 at 10:25 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:13 PM Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The gpio core looks at 'FLAG_BIAS_DISABLE' in preparation of
> > > > calling the
> > > > gpiochip 'set_config()' hook. However, AFAICT, there's no way
> > > > that
> > > > this
> > > > flag is set because there's no support for it in firwmare code.
> > > > Moreover,
> > > > in 'gpiod_configure_flags()', only pull-ups and pull-downs are
> > > > being
> > > > handled.
> > > > 
> > > > On top of this, there are some users that are looking at
> > > > 'PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE' in the 'set_config()' hook. So,
> > > > unless
> > > > I'm
> > > > missing something, it looks like this was never working for
> > > > these
> > > > chips.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that the ACPI case is only compiled tested. At first
> > > > glance,
> > > > it seems
> > > > the current patch is enough but i'm not really sure...
> > > > 
> > > > As a side note, this came to my attention during this patchset
> > > > [1]
> > > > (and, ofr OF,  was tested with it).
> > > > 
> > > > [1]:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/20220708093448.42617-5-nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > 
> > > > Nuno Sá (4):
> > > >   gpiolib: add support for bias pull disable
> > > >   gpiolib: of: support bias pull disable
> > > >   gpiolib: acpi: support bias pull disable
> > > >   dt-bindings: gpio: add pull-disable flag
> > > > 
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c     | 3 +++
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c       | 7 +++++++
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c          | 8 ++++++--
> > > >  include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h | 3 +++
> > > >  include/linux/gpio/machine.h    | 1 +
> > > >  include/linux/of_gpio.h         | 1 +
> > > >  6 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 2.37.0
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Series applied, thanks!
> > 
> > Hi Bart,
> > 
> > I was actually planning to spin a v2 with your suggestion for the
> > naming of the new define... Did you changed it while applying or
> > should
> > I still send it? Or (last option), we just leave it like this :)?
> > 
> > - Nuno Sá
> 
> Yeah, I'm alright with it how it is after a second though: uAPI uses
> the BIAS_PULL_UP/DOWN/DISABLE notation while the in-kernel API uses
> the same scheme but without the BIAS prefix. Unless you want to
> change
> something else - let's keep it as you first submitted it.
> 

Alright, works for me...

- Nuno Sá