Re: [PATCH] staging: wfx: fix reset GPIO polarity
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:43:49PM +, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> On Thursday 5 December 2019 15:49:55 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:08:23PM +, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 4 December 2019 17:59:46 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > > Driver inverts meaning of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW/HIGH. Fix it to prevent
> > > > confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > > index ab0cda1e124f..73d0157a86ba 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > > @@ -199,9 +199,9 @@ static int wfx_spi_probe(struct spi_device *func)
> > > > if (!bus->gpio_reset) {
> > > > dev_warn(>dev, "try to load firmware anyway\n");
> > > > } else {
> > > > - gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > > - udelay(100);
> > > > gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 1);
> > > > + udelay(100);
> > > > + gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > > udelay(2000);
> > > > }
> > > Hello Michał,
> > >
> > > I did not find real consensus in kernel code. My personal taste would
> > > be to keep this gpio "ACTIVE_HIGH" and rename it gpio_nreset. What do
> > > you think about it?
> > >
> > > (in add, this solution would explicitly change the name of the DT
> > > attribute instead of changing the semantic of the existing attribute)
> >
> > As a user (board developer) I would expect that DT describes the
> > GPIO meaning directly: so when I specify GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH flag I also
> > wire up the board so that outputing 1 would match the active state of
> > the chip's signal (that might be inverted for some reason). I think we
> > should stick to what is said in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio.txt
> > (section 1.1).
> >
> > Since this is a new driver in kernel I would prefer to fix it at the start.
> > Changing the name of the GPIO would also be ok, but since there is no DT
> > binding yet, I guess there will come up an issue of 'compatible' string
> > format that does not match 'vendor,chip' now, so we can use the difference
> > for backwards compatibility with out-of-tree driver if needed.
>
> Current 'compatible' string is "silabs,wfx-spi" (for now, it is the
> same for out-of-tree and in-tree driver). And indeed, "wfx" does not
> names a chip.
>
> The three chips currently supported are wf200, wf200s and wfm200. Since
> the driver provides DT bindings for SPI and SDIO buses, I think we
> have to keep the "-spi" suffix. So compatible strings should be
> "silabs,wf200-spi", "silabs,wf200s-spi" and "silabs,wfm200-spi", right?
[...]
I wonder if the '-spi' part is necessary? The interface is determined by
putting device node as a child of an SPI or MMC controller node. Kernel
won't probe SPI driver for MMC device anyway (nor the other way around).
Best Regards
Michał Mirosław
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH] staging: wfx: fix reset GPIO polarity
On Thursday 5 December 2019 15:49:55 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:08:23PM +, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 4 December 2019 17:59:46 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > Driver inverts meaning of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW/HIGH. Fix it to prevent
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > index ab0cda1e124f..73d0157a86ba 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > > @@ -199,9 +199,9 @@ static int wfx_spi_probe(struct spi_device *func)
> > > if (!bus->gpio_reset) {
> > > dev_warn(>dev, "try to load firmware anyway\n");
> > > } else {
> > > - gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > - udelay(100);
> > > gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 1);
> > > + udelay(100);
> > > + gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > udelay(2000);
> > > }
> > Hello Michał,
> >
> > I did not find real consensus in kernel code. My personal taste would
> > be to keep this gpio "ACTIVE_HIGH" and rename it gpio_nreset. What do
> > you think about it?
> >
> > (in add, this solution would explicitly change the name of the DT
> > attribute instead of changing the semantic of the existing attribute)
>
> As a user (board developer) I would expect that DT describes the
> GPIO meaning directly: so when I specify GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH flag I also
> wire up the board so that outputing 1 would match the active state of
> the chip's signal (that might be inverted for some reason). I think we
> should stick to what is said in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio.txt
> (section 1.1).
>
> Since this is a new driver in kernel I would prefer to fix it at the start.
> Changing the name of the GPIO would also be ok, but since there is no DT
> binding yet, I guess there will come up an issue of 'compatible' string
> format that does not match 'vendor,chip' now, so we can use the difference
> for backwards compatibility with out-of-tree driver if needed.
Current 'compatible' string is "silabs,wfx-spi" (for now, it is the
same for out-of-tree and in-tree driver). And indeed, "wfx" does not
names a chip.
The three chips currently supported are wf200, wf200s and wfm200. Since
the driver provides DT bindings for SPI and SDIO buses, I think we
have to keep the "-spi" suffix. So compatible strings should be
"silabs,wf200-spi", "silabs,wf200s-spi" and "silabs,wfm200-spi", right?
So we could fix the semantic of gpios-reset and keep the backward
compatibility. Looks perfect.
I can make this change in my next pull-request (but if you submit a
patch, it will probably go faster :) ).
--
Jérôme Pouiller
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH] staging: wfx: fix reset GPIO polarity
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:08:23PM +, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> On Wednesday 4 December 2019 17:59:46 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > Driver inverts meaning of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW/HIGH. Fix it to prevent
> > confusion.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > index ab0cda1e124f..73d0157a86ba 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> > @@ -199,9 +199,9 @@ static int wfx_spi_probe(struct spi_device *func)
> > if (!bus->gpio_reset) {
> > dev_warn(>dev, "try to load firmware anyway\n");
> > } else {
> > - gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > - udelay(100);
> > gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 1);
> > + udelay(100);
> > + gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> > udelay(2000);
> > }
> Hello Michał,
>
> I did not find real consensus in kernel code. My personal taste would
> be to keep this gpio "ACTIVE_HIGH" and rename it gpio_nreset. What do
> you think about it?
>
> (in add, this solution would explicitly change the name of the DT
> attribute instead of changing the semantic of the existing attribute)
As a user (board developer) I would expect that DT describes the
GPIO meaning directly: so when I specify GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH flag I also
wire up the board so that outputing 1 would match the active state of
the chip's signal (that might be inverted for some reason). I think we
should stick to what is said in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio.txt
(section 1.1).
Since this is a new driver in kernel I would prefer to fix it at the start.
Changing the name of the GPIO would also be ok, but since there is no DT
binding yet, I guess there will come up an issue of 'compatible' string
format that does not match 'vendor,chip' now, so we can use the difference
for backwards compatibility with out-of-tree driver if needed.
Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH] staging: wfx: fix reset GPIO polarity
On Wednesday 4 December 2019 17:59:46 CET Michał Mirosław wrote:
> Driver inverts meaning of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW/HIGH. Fix it to prevent
> confusion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław
> ---
> drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> index ab0cda1e124f..73d0157a86ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
> @@ -199,9 +199,9 @@ static int wfx_spi_probe(struct spi_device *func)
> if (!bus->gpio_reset) {
> dev_warn(>dev, "try to load firmware anyway\n");
> } else {
> - gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> - udelay(100);
> gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 1);
> + udelay(100);
> + gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
> udelay(2000);
> }
Hello Michał,
I did not find real consensus in kernel code. My personal taste would
be to keep this gpio "ACTIVE_HIGH" and rename it gpio_nreset. What do
you think about it?
(in add, this solution would explicitly change the name of the DT
attribute instead of changing the semantic of the existing attribute)
--
Jérôme Pouiller
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
[PATCH] staging: wfx: fix reset GPIO polarity
Driver inverts meaning of GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW/HIGH. Fix it to prevent
confusion.
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław
---
drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
index ab0cda1e124f..73d0157a86ba 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/bus_spi.c
@@ -199,9 +199,9 @@ static int wfx_spi_probe(struct spi_device *func)
if (!bus->gpio_reset) {
dev_warn(>dev, "try to load firmware anyway\n");
} else {
- gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
- udelay(100);
gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 1);
+ udelay(100);
+ gpiod_set_value(bus->gpio_reset, 0);
udelay(2000);
}
--
2.20.1
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
