Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: TODO: add an item about GPIO safe-state

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 06:25:21PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 6:21 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 05:11:45PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > This adds a new TODO item for gpiolib and can also be used to start
> > > a discussion about the need for it and implementation details.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/TODO | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/TODO b/drivers/gpio/TODO
> > > index f87ff3fa8a53..6ab39c5cec9d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/TODO
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/TODO
> > > @@ -197,3 +197,25 @@ A small number of drivers have been converted (pl061, tegra186, msm,
> > >  amd, apple), and can be used as examples of how to proceed with this
> > >  conversion. Note that drivers using the generic irqchip framework
> > >  cannot be converted yet, but watch this space!
> > > +
> > > +Safe-state of GPIOs
> > > +
> > > +During 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference's GPIO & pinctrl BOF it's been discussed
> > > +that we don't have any middle ground between hogging GPIO lines and letting the
> > > +user (either in-kernel or user-space) control them. Either the lines are forever
> > > +reserved as hogs or their state is undefined unless requested.
> > > +
> > > +Currently the behavior of GPIOs that were not requested or were released is
> > > +largely driver dependent (the provider driver decides whether the line's state
> > > +is reverted to some predefined value or left as-is). This can be problematic
> > > +as the output state of a line can damage physical hardware.
> > > +
> > > +This item is about proposing a solution, most likely in the form of a new device
> > > +property called "safe-state" that would define the safe states of specific lines
> > > +(e.g. output-high) but not block the line from being requested by users who
> > > +could then modify that default state. Once released the GPIO core would then
> > > +put the line back into the "safe-state".
> > > +
> >
> > Geert suggests idle-state, rather than safe-state, but you call it
> > the "default state" here as well - pick one.
> >
> 
> idle-state it is then.
> 
> > So this idle-state would be another attribute on a line that the user
> > could configure via the GPIO uAPI, and so replicate the "set and forget"
> > sysfs behavior that we are currently missing, and which seems to be the
> > biggest sticking point for a transition away from sysfs?
> >
> 
> No, this should only be defined on the device tree or in ACPI. As the
> HW policy of a device. I don't think we should allow user-space to
> override this behavior.
> 

Oh, ok - from the item I got the impression you did want to be able to
control it from user-space.

> > For backward compatibility the default idle-state, i.e. the value the
> > idle-state would take if not explicitly set, would map to existing
> > behaviour, so let the driver decide?
> >
> > What happens when gpiolib frees the line?  Isn't the driver still able
> > to do what it likes to the line at that point, no matter what GPIO core
> > has set it to previously? e.g. gpio_sim_free() restores the line to its
> > own internal pull value.
> >
> 
> This "idle-state" property wouldn't be mandatory and normally would
> only be defined for a limited set of lines. I'd say we just override
> whatever the driver does in free() (most drivers don't implement it
> BTW) and do what the property says we should.
> 

Not sure what "override" involves.
You call the driver to set the value after calling the free()?

Cheers,
Kent.