[PATCH v5 08/10] i2c: of-prober: Add GPIO support

[Chen-Yu Tsai]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:01 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 06:32:16PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 10:20 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:20:01PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +     if (!data->gpiods)
> > > > +             return 0;
> > >
> > > If it comes a new code (something else besides GPIOs and regulators) this
> > > will be a (small) impediment. Better to have a helper for each case and do
> > >
> > >         ret = ..._gpiods();
> > >         if (ret)
> > >                 ...
> > >
> > > Same for regulators and anything else in the future, if any.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean wrap each individual type in a wrapper
> > and call those here, like the following?
> >
> >     i2c_of_probe_enable_res(...)
> >     {
> >         ret = i2c_of_probe_enable_regulators(...)
> >         if (ret)
> >               return ret;
> >
> >         ret = i2c_of_probe_enable_gpios(...)
> >         if (ret)
> >               goto error_disable_regulators;
> >
> >         ...
> >     }
>
> Yes.
>
> ...
>
> > > > +             /*
> > > > +              * reset GPIOs normally have opposite polarity compared to
> > >
> > > "reset"
> > >
> > > > +              * enable GPIOs. Instead of parsing the flags again, simply
> > >
> > > "enable"
> > >
> > > > +              * set the raw value to high.
> > >
> > > This is quite a fragile assumption. Yes, it would work in 98% cases, but will
> > > break if it's not true somewhere else.
> >
> > Well, this seems to be the de facto standard. Or it would have to remember
> > what each GPIO descriptor's name is, and try to classify those into either
> > "enable" or "reset", and set their respective logical values to 1 or 0.
> > And then you run into a peripheral with a broken binding that has its
> > "reset" GPIO inverted, i.e. it's driver behavior needs to follow the
> > "enable" GPIO style. The class of devices this prober targets are
> > consumer electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) that at least have gone
> > through some component selection where the options won't have conflicting
> > requirements.
>
> I'm talking from real life example(s) :-)
>
> Recently I looked at the OV7251 sensor driver that expects "enable" GPIO while
> all users supply "reset"-as-"enable" with the exact trouble I described.
> Yet it's pure software / ABI issue in that case, but who knows what PCB
> engineers may come up with.

For the OV7251 case specifically, the current approach works fine, as the
polarity is the same: high electric level for a working chip.

But now that you mention it, camera sensors are exactly the case I had
in mind, though not the same chip. Some of the OmniVision and GalaxyCore
sensors have a "shutdown" pin that is active high, i.e. high electric
level shuts down the chip.

So I guess the alternative would be to remember each GPIO's name, and
do the appropriate thing based on the name, and also set the logical
value, not the raw value. If it says "shutdown" or "reset", set the
logical value to 0; if it says "enable", set it to 1. And hopefully
we don't run into a binding which has "shutdown" but is actually
"enable" ...

I don't have this case and I kind of want to leave it as a TODO though.
I feel like the scope of the series is expanding ever so slightly.


ChenYu

> > And if the polarities of the possible components don't line up, then this
> > probe structure can't really do anything. One would need something that
> > power sequences each component separately and probes it. I would really
> > like to avoid that if possible, as it makes the boot time (to peripheral
> > available) dependent on which component you have and how far down the
> > list it is. We have Chromebooks that have 4 touchscreen components
> > introduced over the years. In that case something more like Doug's
> > original proposal would work better: something that forces mutual
> > exclusivity among a class of devices.
>
> Maybe. I just pointed out the potential problem.
>
> > > > +              */
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>