[alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/4] ASoC: s3c64xx/smartq: use dynamic registration

Alexandre Courbot gnurou at gmail.com
Tue Jul 15 20:00:45 PDT 2014

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars at metafoo.de> wrote:
>> 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
>>> GPIO.
>>> 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[1] that added it.
> I am not opposed to it as a convenience function. Note that since the
> open-source and open-drain flags are already handled by the lookup
> table, the only flags it should handle are those related to direction,
> value, and (maybe) sysfs export.

Problem is, too much convenience functions seems to ultimately kill convenience.

The canonical way to request a GPIO is by providing a (device,
function, index) triplet to gpiod_get_index(). Since most functions
only need one GPIO, we have gpiod_get(device, function) which is
basically an alias to gpiod_get_index(device, function, 0) (note to
self: we should probably inline it).

On top of these comes another set of convenience functions,
gpiod_get_optional() and gpiod_get_index_optional(), which return NULL
instead of -ENOENT if the requested GPIO mapping does not exist. This
is useful for the common case where a driver can work without a GPIO.

Of course these functions all have devm counterparts, so we currently
have 8 (devm_)gpiod_get(_index)(_optional) functions.

If we are to add functions with an init flags parameter, we will end
with 16 functions. That starts to be a bit too much to my taste, and
maybe that's where GPIO consumers should sacrifice some convenience to
preserve a comprehensible GPIO API.

There might be other ways to work around this though. For instance, we
could replace the _optional functions by a GPIOF_OPTIONAL flag to be
passed to a more generic function that would also accept direction and
init value flags. Actually I am not seeing any user of the _optional
variant in -next, so maybe we should just do this. Thierry, since you
introduced the _optional functions, can we get your thoughts about

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list