On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:35:53AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > It sounds like we agree that this patch sans prints is acceptable. > > > > It makes things better so let's go with that. > > Sounds good. > > I'm about to apply patches 2, 3 and 4 with some smaller changes like > demoting the printk messages to KERN_DEBUG and dropping the ftx-progs > warning. > > > The problem for the user is that the line looks to be > > "used by the kernel" (true in some sense) but they have no > > idea what to do about it and that the ftx-prog will solve > > their hacking problem. > > Right, it's not ideal, but the datasheets for these devices clearly > states that the configuration of the CBUS pins is done in EEPROM and the > vendor provides some tool to do that. Then there's a bunch of open > source implementations for the same including ftx-progs (which can only > be used for a subset of these devices). > > I'd be fine with a dev_err() on the first request that fails saying that > the CBUS pin is not configured for GPIO use (perhaps even on every > request if its not something that a non-root user can trigger). But we > cannot have both that and have the line marked in-use through the > chardev interface currently. > > I'm admittedly a bit torn on which is preferable. I've applied the patches now. Having this reported through the chardev interface must be better than having to match up a failed request with something in the system log. Johan
