[alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/4] ASoC: s3c64xx/smartq: use dynamic registration
lars at metafoo.de
Tue Jul 15 00:58:05 PDT 2014
On 07/15/2014 09:36 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Monday 14 July 2014 19:36:24 Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 08:23:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Monday 14 July 2014 18:18:12 Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>>> Yes. But now that you say it the gpiod_direction_output() call is missing
>>>>> from this patch.
>>>> I'm lost now. The GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH I added comes from Documentation/gpio/board.txt
>>>> and as Linus Walleij explained to me the other day, the lookup is supposed
>>>> to replace devm_gpio_request_one(), which in turn replaced both the
>>>> gpio_request and the gpio_direction_output(). Do I need to put the
>>>> gpiod_direction_output() back or is there another interface for that when
>>>> registering the board gpios?
>>> Indeed. If you *do* need an explicit _output() then that sounds to me
>>> like we either need a gpiod_get_one() or an extension to the table,
>>> looking at the code it seems like this is indeed the case. We can set
>>> if the GPIO is active high/low, or open source/drain but there's no flag
>>> for the initial state.
>> (adding Alexandre and the gpio list)
>> GPIO people: any guidance on how a board file should set a gpio to
>> output/default-high in a GPIO_LOOKUP() table to replace a
>> devm_gpio_request_one() call in a device driver with devm_gpiod_get()?
>> Do we need to add an interface extension to do this, e.g. passing
>> GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH as the flags rather than GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH?
> The way I see it, GPIO mappings (whether they are done using the
> lookup tables, DT, or ACPI) should only care about details that are
> relevant to the device layout and that should be abstracted to the
> driver (e.g. whether the GPIO is active low or open drain) so drivers
> do not need to check X conditions every time they want to drive the
> Direction and initial value, on the other hand, are clearly properties
> that ought to be set by the driver itself. Thus my expectation here
> would be that the driver sets the GPIO direction and initial value as
> soon as it gets it using gpiod_direction_output(). In other words,
> there is no replacement for gpio_request_one() with the gpiod
> interface. Is there any use-case that cannot be covered by calling
> gpiod_direction_output() right after gpiod_get()? AFAICT this is what
> gpio_request_one() was doing anyway.
I agree with you that this is something that should be done in the driver
and not in the lookup table. I think that it is still a good idea to have a
replacement for gpio_request_one with the new GPIO descriptor API. A large
share of the drivers want to call either gpio_direction_input() or
gpio_direction_output() right after requesting the GPIO. Combining both the
requesting and the configuration of the GPIO into one function call makes
the code a bit shorter and also simplifies the error handling. Even more so
if e.g. the GPIO is optional. This was one of the main reasons why
gpio_request_one was introduced, see the commit that added it.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel