On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:29 PM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 11:10:38AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:57 AM Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:05:48AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > - return !gpio_get_value(ts->gpio); > > > > + return !gpiod_get_value(ts->gpiod); > > > > > > This is not correct. gpio_get_value() is raw polarity vs > > > gpiod_get_value() using logical active/inactive, and tsc2007 GPIO lines > > > are active low. The negation must be dropped after switching to GPIOD > > > API. > > > > Ah, indeed, I missed that, thanks! > > > > ... > > > > > > - ts->gpio = of_get_gpio(np, 0); > > > > - if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio)) > > > > - ts->get_pendown_state = tsc2007_get_pendown_state_gpio; > > > > - else > > > > - dev_warn(&client->dev, > > > > - "GPIO not specified in DT (of_get_gpio returned %d)\n", > > > > - ts->gpio); > > > > + ts->gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, NULL, GPIOD_IN); > > > > > > GPIO is definitely not optional in DT case, at least in the way the > > > driver written right now. > > > > Can you elaborate this, please? I don't see from the dev_warn() w/o > > any error code returned that it's mandatory. > > In the bindings one may read: > > > > Optional properties: > > - gpios: the interrupt gpio the chip is connected to (trough the penirq pin). > > The penirq pin goes to low when the panel is touched. > > (see GPIO binding[1] for more details). > > > > Nothing suggested it's mandatory. What have I missed? > > Ah, indeed, I misread the code and thought we'd abort if there is no > pendown GPIO. I wonder if we should remove the warning since we seem to > support operations without it. But that's what I have done, i.e. removed the warning as well. So, if there are no other concerns than inverted value, I'll send v2. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
