From: Harish Jenny K N <harish_kandiga@mentor.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com>
Cc: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
Balasubramani Vivekanandan
<balasubramani_vivekanandan@mentor.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>,
Enrico Weigelt <info@metux.net>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] gpio: inverter: document the inverter bindings
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:05:40 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <89ddaab4-fb5f-8df2-c691-87cc0b1503d0@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdViwrqg48t2Pc2JtZKLGzLPy0cVfzcnqctGo9oaDpC9Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Geert,
On 07/10/19 1:48 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Eugeniu,
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 3:08 PM Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:07:20AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> My standard reply would be: describe the device connected to the GPIO(s)
>>> in DT. The GPIO line polarities are specified in the device's "gpios"
>>> properties.
>>> Next step would be to use the device from Linux. For that to work, you
>>> need a dedicated driver (for the complex case), or something generic
>>> (for the simple case).
>>> The latter is not unlike e.g. spidev. Once you have a generic driver,
>>> you can use "driver_override" in sysfs to bind the generic driver to
>>> your device. See e.g. commit 5039563e7c25eccd ("spi: Add
>>> driver_override SPI device attribute").
>> We have passed your suggestions along. Many thanks.
>>
>>> Currently we don't have a "generic" driver for GPIOs. We do have the
>>> GPIO chardev interface, which exports a full gpio_chip.
>>> It indeed looks like this "gpio-inverter" could be used as a generic
>>> driver. But it is limited to GPIOs that are inverted, which rules out
>>> some use cases.
>>>
>>> So what about making it more generic, and dropping the "inverter" from
>>> its name, and the "inverted" from the "inverted-gpios" property? After
>>> all the inversion can be specified by the polarity of the GPIO cells in
>>> the "gpios" property, and the GPIO core will take care of it[*]?
>>> Which boils down to adding a simple DT interface to my gpio-aggregator
>>> ("[PATCH/RFC v2 0/5] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator Driver",
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190911143858.13024-1-geert+renesas@glider.be/).
>>> And now I have realized[*], we probably no longer need the GPIO
>>> Forwarder Helper, as there is no need to add inversion on top.
>> After having a look at the gpio aggregator (and giving it a try on
>> R-Car3 H3ULCB), here is how I interpret the above comment:
>>
>> If there is still a compelling reason for having gpio-inverter, then it
>> probably makes sense to strip it from its "inverter" function (hence,
>> transforming it into some kind of "repeater") on the basis that the
>> inverting function is more of a collateral/secondary feature, rather
>> than its primary one. Just like in the case of gpio aggregator, the
>> primary function of gpio inverter is to accept a bunch of GPIO lines and
>> to expose those via a dedicated gpiochip. I hope this is a proper
>> summary of the first point in your comment. In any case, this is the
>> understanding I get based on my experiments with both drivers.
> Yes, the inverter is basically a "repeater" (or "aggregator", when it has
> multiple GPIOs connected), hardcoded to invert.
>
>> What I also infer is that, assuming gpio-inverter will stay (potentially
>> renamed and stripped of its non-essential inverting function), the gpio
>> aggregator will need to keep its Forwarder Helper (supposed to act as a
>> common foundation for both drivers).
> What I meant is that if the inverter and aggregator would be combinoed
> into a single driver, there would no longer be a need[*] for a separate
> helper, and it could be incorporated into the single driver.
>
> [*] The individual helper functions may still be useful for some other
> driver, though.
Agree.
>> The second point which I extract from your comment is that the "gpio
>> aggregator" could alternatively acquire the role of "gpio-inverter"
>> (hence superseding it) by adding a "simple DT interface". I actually
>> tend to like this proposal, since (as said above) both drivers are
>> essentially doing the same thing, i.e. they cluster a number of gpio
>> lines and expose this cluster as a new gpiochip (keeping the
>> reserved/used gpio lines on hold). That looks like a huge overlap in
>> the functionalities of the two drivers.
> Yes, both drivers are very similar. The difference lies in how they
> acquire the list of GPIO descriptors.
Yes. In fact my V2 version of the patch tried to implement the same role as repeater/forwarder albeit with a different naming/intention.
Linus Walleij mentioned that using GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW just to get free inversion inside GPIOLIB was not OK really and this is a hardware description problem and totally different from the implementation problem inside the driver.
Hence we changed the logic to inverter consumer driver doing inversion inside get and set functions.
>
>> The only difference which I see is that "gpio-inverter" is getting its
>> input from DT and generates the gpiochips at probe time, while
>> "gpio aggregator" is getting its input from sysfs and generates the
>> gpiochips at runtime, post-probe.
> Exactly.
>
> For my virtualization use case, I need to create the list of GPIO
> descriptors at run-time, hence the sysfs interface. This is
> polarity-agnostic (i.e. the end user needs to care about polarity).
>
> For Harish use case, he needs to describe the list from DT, with
> polarity inverted, which can be done by specifying the GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
> flag in the node's"gpios" property.
>
> For your use case, you want to describe the list in DT, with line-names,
> and polarity specified.
>
>> So, assuming no objections from Harish and other reviewers, I would be
>> very happy to review and test the DT-based gpio inversion functionality
>> as part of gpio aggregator. Thanks!
I tested your aggregator driver with the below minor changes in gpio-aggregator (combined with some minor changes in GPIO forwarder) to get devicetree support.
195,196d194
< int index = 0;
< int count;
278,295d275
< count = gpiod_count(dev, NULL);
< if (count > 0) {
< while (index < count) {
< desc = devm_gpiod_get_index(dev, NULL, index, GPIOD_ASIS);
<
< if (desc == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
< return -EPROBE_DEFER;
<
< if (IS_ERR(desc))
< return PTR_ERR(desc);
<
< error = add_gpio(dev, &descs, &n, desc);
< if (error)
< return error;
< index++;
< }
< }
<
316,319d295
< static const struct of_device_id gpio_aggregator_match[] = {
< { .compatible = "gpio-aggregator", }, { },
< };
<
326d301
< .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(gpio_aggregator_match),
This does work and achieve our aim of inverter driver.
Hence no objection from my side to merge the drivers. Please let me know if I need to send you a patch on top of your aggregator patch.
Hoping to get some credits for my work of 5 months effort ! ;)
Best Regards,
Harish Jenny K N
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-11 4:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-28 9:30 [PATCH V4 2/2] gpio: inverter: document the inverter bindings Harish Jenny K N
2019-07-04 5:01 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-07-08 22:36 ` Rob Herring
2019-07-09 5:25 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-07-09 16:08 ` Rob Herring
2019-07-10 8:28 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-07-17 13:51 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-07-29 11:07 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-08-05 11:15 ` Linus Walleij
2019-08-09 14:08 ` Rob Herring
2019-08-10 8:51 ` Linus Walleij
2019-08-19 9:36 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-08-27 7:47 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-08-30 5:21 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-09-04 4:58 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-09-10 7:47 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-11 12:52 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-09-25 16:51 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2019-09-27 5:52 ` Phil Reid
2019-09-27 9:07 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-05 13:07 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2019-10-07 8:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-11 4:35 ` Harish Jenny K N [this message]
2019-11-12 11:52 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-11-12 12:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-04 19:07 ` Stephen Warren
2019-10-05 17:50 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2019-10-07 15:36 ` Stephen Warren
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-06-28 5:20 [PATCH V4 0/2] Add Inverter controller for gpio configuration Harish Jenny K N
2019-06-28 5:20 ` [PATCH V4 2/2] gpio: inverter: document the inverter bindings Harish Jenny K N
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=89ddaab4-fb5f-8df2-c691-87cc0b1503d0@mentor.com \
--to=harish_kandiga@mentor.com \
--cc=balasubramani_vivekanandan@mentor.com \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=erosca@de.adit-jv.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=info@metux.net \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=preid@electromag.com.au \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=roscaeugeniu@gmail.com \
--cc=swarren@nvidia.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).