On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:24 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:50 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We have new, less cumbersome and clearer interfaces for controlling GPIO > > polarity. Use them in the MMC code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I like the looks of the code better, obviously but this looks like this for > a reason unfortunately. > > See the following from > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml: > > # CD and WP lines can be implemented on the hardware in one of two > # ways: as GPIOs, specified in cd-gpios and wp-gpios properties, or > # as dedicated pins. Polarity of dedicated pins can be specified, > # using *-inverted properties. GPIO polarity can also be specified > # using the GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW flag. This creates an ambiguity in the > # latter case. We choose to use the XOR logic for GPIO CD and WP > # lines. This means, the two properties are "superimposed," for > # example leaving the GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW flag clear and specifying the > # respective *-inverted property property results in a > # double-inversion and actually means the "normal" line polarity is > # in effect. > I hate it, thanks. :) > Will you still provide the desired "double inversion" after this patch? > Not in the current form. Would it work to go: if (override_active_level) { if (!(host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH)) gpiod_set_active_high(desc); else gpiod_set_active_low(desc); } else { if (host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH) gpiod_set_active_high(desc); else gpiod_set_active_low(desc); } ? Alternatively we could reimplement the toggle semantics locally in a helper function in order to get rid of it from GPIOLIB. Bart