Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpiolib: Fix a mess with the GPIO_* flags

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 2:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:42:37AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:17 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The GPIO_* flag definitions are *almost* duplicated in two files
> > > (with unmatches OPEN_SOURCE / OPEN_DRAIN). Moreover, some code relies
> > > on one set of definitions while the rest is on the other. Clean up
> > > this mess by providing only one source of the definitions to all.
> > >
> > > Fixes: b424808115cb ("brcm80211: brcmsmac: Move LEDs to GPIO descriptors")
> > > Fixes: 5923ea6c2ce6 ("gpio: pass lookup and descriptor flags to request_own")
> > > Fixes: fed7026adc7c ("gpiolib: Make use of enum gpio_lookup_flags consistent")
> > > Fixes: 4c0facddb7d8 ("gpio: core: Decouple open drain/source flag with active low/high")
> > > Fixes: 69d301fdd196 ("gpio: add DT bindings for existing consumer flags")
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c                     |  5 ++---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c                        |  8 +++-----
> > >  .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c         |  2 +-
> > >  include/linux/gpio/driver.h                   |  3 +--
> > >  include/linux/gpio/machine.h                  | 20 +++++--------------
> > >  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > I don't think ./dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h is the right source of these
> > defines for everyone - including non-OF systems. I would prefer the
> > ones in include/linux/gpio/machine.h be the upstream source but then
> > headers in include/dt-bindings/ cannot include them so my second-best
> > suggestion is to rename the ones in include/linux/gpio/machine.h and
> > treewide too. In general values from ./dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h should
> > only be used in DTS sources and gpiolib-of code.
>
> Then, please fix that your way. It's quite annoying issue.
>

This is not difficult in itself but it's a tree-wide change so we will
probably have to send it to Torvalds at the end of the merge window in
a separate pull-request.

I don't really have time now, I'll be travelling for 5 weeks in a row.
I'll see closer to the merge window. Or next release cycle.

Bart