Hi Dmitry,
dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:50:07 -0800:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:52 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:32 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > /* Reset */
> > > - if (gpio_is_valid(rstn)) {
> > > + if (rstn) {
> > > udelay(1);
> > > - gpio_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 0);
> > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 0);
> > > udelay(1);
> > > - gpio_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 1);
> > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 1);
> >
> > For gpiod conversions, if we are not willing to chase whether existing
> > DTSes specify polarities
> > properly and create workarounds in case they are wrong, we should use
> > gpiod_set_raw_value*()
> > (my preference would be to do the work and not use "raw" variants).
> >
> > In this particular case, arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts
> > defines reset line as active low,
> > so you are leaving the device in reset state.
You mean the semantics of gpio_set_value() gpiod_set_value() are
different? Looking at your patch it looks like gpio_set_value() asserts
a physical line state (high or low) while gpiod_set_value() would
actually try to assert a logical state (enabled or disabled) with the
meaning of those being possibly inverted thanks to the DT polarities.
Am I getting this right?
> > Please review your other conversion patches.
>
> We also can not change the names of requested GPIOs from "reset-gpio"
> to "rstn-gpios" and expect
> this to work.
Yep, missed that indeed.
>
> Stefan, please consider reverting this and applying a couple of
> patches I will send out shortly.
If my above understanding is right, then, yeah, the current
patches need to be fixed.
Thanks,
Miquèl
