ping. Device omap3-gta04 is neither working with v5.3 nor linux-next quite a while and we need a solution. > Am 31.08.2019 um 08:48 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi, > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:29:19 +0200 > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:43 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:23 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> I tried to convince Linus that this is the right way but he convinced >>>> me that a fix that handles all cases does not exist. >>>> >>>> There seem to be embedded devices with older DTB (potentially in ROM) >>>> which provide a plain 0 value for a gpios definition. And either with >>>> or without spi-cs-high. >>>> >>>> Since "0" is the same as "GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH", the absence of >>>> spi-cs-high was and must be interpreted as active low for these >>>> devices. This leads to the inversion logic in code. >>>> >>>> AFAIR it boils down to the question if gpiolib and the bindings >>>> should still support such legacy devices with out-of tree DTB, >>>> but force in-tree DTS to add the legacy spi-cs-high property. >>>> >>>> Or if we should fix the 2 or 3 cases of in-tree legacy cases >>>> and potentially break out-of tree DTBs. >>> >>> If it is small number of platforms, then the kernel could handle those >>> cases explicitly as needed. >>> >>>> IMHO it is more general to keep the out-of-tree DTBs working >>>> and "fix" what we can control (in-tree DTS). >>> >>> If we do this, then we need to not call spi-cs-high legacy because >>> we're stuck with it forever. >> >> I agree. The background on it is here: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/2/4 >> >> Not using the negatively defined (i.e. if it is no there, the line is >> by default active low) spi-cs-high would break >> PowerPC, who were AFAICT using this to ship devices. >> > is this thing now just waiting for someone to do a s/legacy//? > > Regards, > Andreas
