Re: [PATCH] [v2] at86rf230: convert to gpio descriptors

[Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org>]

Hello.

On 01.02.23 17:19, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Hello Dmitry.
>>
>> On 01.02.23 01:50, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:52 PM Dmitry Torokhov
>>> <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Arnd,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:32 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           /* Reset */
>>>>> -       if (gpio_is_valid(rstn)) {
>>>>> +       if (rstn) {
>>>>>                   udelay(1);
>>>>> -               gpio_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 0);
>>>>> +               gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 0);
>>>>>                   udelay(1);
>>>>> -               gpio_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 1);
>>>>> +               gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rstn, 1);
>>>>
>>>> For gpiod conversions, if we are not willing to chase whether existing
>>>> DTSes specify polarities
>>>> properly and create workarounds in case they are wrong, we should use
>>>> gpiod_set_raw_value*()
>>>> (my preference would be to do the work and not use "raw" variants).
>>>>
>>>> In this particular case, arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts
>>>> defines reset line as active low,
>>>> so you are leaving the device in reset state.
>>>>
>>>> Please review your other conversion patches.
>>>
>>> We also can not change the names of requested GPIOs from "reset-gpio"
>>> to "rstn-gpios" and expect
>>> this to work.
>>>
>>> Stefan, please consider reverting this and applying a couple of
>>> patches I will send out shortly.
>>
>> Thanks for having another look at these patches. Do you have the same
>> concern for the convesion patch to cc2520 that has been posted and applied
>> as well?
> 
> There are no DT users of cc2520 in the tree, so while ideally reset line
> should not be left in "logical active" state at the end of the probe, we
> can deal with this in a follow up patch, I doubt it will lead to
> regressions as it is.
> 
> If I were really nitpicky I would adjust error messages when we fail to
> get GPIOs, but again, can be done as a followup.

Feel free to send patches if you are in the mood on fixing this as well. :-)

>> Arnd, if you have any concerns about the revert please speak up soon as I am
>> going to revert your patch and get these patches into my tree later today.
>>
> 
> Thanks.

Reverted and pushed now. Your patches are applied as well. Thanks again 
for catching this early on.

regards
Stefan Schmidt