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

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:28:00PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Rob Jones <rob.jones at codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 16/07/14 08:51, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:28:33PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Thierry Reding
>> >>> <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:00:45PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>>> this?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I personally prefer explicit naming of the functions rather than putting
>> >>>> a bunch of flags into some parameter. If you're overly concerned about
>> >>>> the amount of convenience functions, perhaps the _index variants can be
>> >>>> left out for gpiod_get_one(). I'd argue that if drivers want to deal
>> >>>> with that level of detail anyway, they may just as well add the index
>> >>>> explicitly when calling the function.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> While we're at it, gpiod_get_one() doesn't sound like a very good name.
>> >>>> All other variants only request "one" as well. Perhaps something like
>> >>>> gpiod_get_with_flags() would be a better name.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then again, maybe rather than add a new set of functions we should bite
>> >>>> the bullet and change gpiod_get() (and variants) to take an additional
>> >>>> flags parameter. There aren't all that many users yet (I count 26
>> >>>> outside of drivers/gpio), so maybe now would still be a good time to do
>> >>>> that.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> That sounds reasonable indeed. And preferable to getting an aneurysm
>> >>> after trying to spell devm_gpiod_get_index_optional_with_flags().
>> >>>
>> >>> This also makes the most sense since most GPIO users will want to set
>> >>> a direction and value right after obtaining one. So if there is no
>> >>> objection I will probably start refactoring gpiod_get() this week.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sounds good to me.
>> >>
>> >
>> > In light of this, should I hold off starting on devm_gpiod_get_array()
>> > as discussed on here last week?
>>
>> These are two independant issues, and adapting the get_array() patch
>> to a refactored gpiod_get() should be trivial.
>>
>> But while we are at it (and sorry for going further off-topic), I also
>> think that gpiod_get_array() should not follow the same calling
>> convention as gpio_request_array() by taking an array of whatever
>> gpiod_get() would require. Instead, I think it should be redefined to
>> mean "get all the GPIOs for a given function". For instance, say that
>> in the DT you have
>>
>> foo-gpios = <&gpio 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH &gpio 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH &gpio 2
>> GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>
>> Then gpiod_get_array(dev, "foo", &num) should return descriptors to
>> these 3 GPIOs and assign "3" to num. The same thing can be done with
>> the platform lookup tables.
>>
>> Actually it would be even better if this API could be designed to
>> interact nicely with the multiple GPIO setting patch by Rojhalat:
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-gpio/msg00827.html
>>
>> gpiod_get_array() would thus allocate and return an array of GPIO
>> descriptors suitable to be used immediatly with gpiod_set_array(). And
>> bam, a nice full-circle API for handling multiple GPIOs. My
>> expectations have risen all of a sudden. ;)
>
> Should the new gpiod_get_array() function also have a way to specify the
> flags similar to gpiod_get()?

Probably an optional array of flags could not hurt, to follow the
example of gpiod_get().

> I agree that making it return all GPIOs of
> a given function is a good idea. And given that GPIOs associated with
> the same function probably behave very similarly it should be safe to
> add flags handling to that as well. That is, I don't think we'd need to
> worry about different GPIOs of the same function requiring different
> directions or initial values (note that polarity is still handled by the
> GPIO specifier).

Right. It may very well be that a single flag specifier (as opposed to
an array) will be enough for this case. If you need to request some
GPIOs as input and some other as output then they are clearly
different functions and requesting them together would be an abuse of
the API.

Initial values of output GPIOs might be a reason why we want an array
though, and I leave it to Rob to decide what is best here since he has
a better idea of how this is going to be used.