Re: [PATCH RFC 4/6] net: rfkill: gpio: add device tree support - Chen-Yu Tsai

From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/6] net: rfkill: gpio: add device tree support
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:41:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGb2v66XGj+WPGY7tpPT-2f91XpLVsGeBw=Ne+1k9F=PzZjZDg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZOD4zeA8T5kbJ4c5NsnuzHCg1mw8rRMYNT9c4R-Qnc6A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
>>>> +- NAME_shutdown-gpios  : GPIO phandle to shutdown control
>>>> +                         (phandle must be the second)
>>>> +- NAME_reset-gpios     : GPIO phandle to reset control
>>>> +
>>>> +NAME must match the rfkill-name property. NAME_shutdown-gpios or
>>>> +NAME_reset-gpios, or both, must be defined.
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I don't understand this part. Why do you include the name in the
>>> gpios property, rather than just hardcoding the property strings
>>> to "shutdown-gpios" and "reset-gpios"?
>>
>> This quirk is a result of how gpiod_get_index implements device tree
>> lookup.
>
> Why can't it just have a single property "gpios", where the first
> element is the reset GPIO and the second is the shutdown GPIO?
>
> rfkill-gpio does this:
>
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, rfkill->reset_name, 0);
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, rfkill->shutdown_name, 1);
>
> The passed con ID name parameter is only there for the device
> tree case it seems. (ACPI ignores it.) So what about you just
> don't pass it at all and patch it to do like this instead:
>
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 0);
> gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 1);

I'd like that. It's much cleaner.

> Heikki, are you OK with this change?
>
> I think this is actually necessary if the ACPI and DT unification
> pipe dream shall limp forward, we cannot have arguments passed
> that have a semantic effect on DT but not on ACPI... Drivers
> that are supposed to use both ACPI and DT will always
> have to pass NULL as con ID.
>
>> If con_id is given, it is prepended to "gpios" as the property string.
>> con_id is also used as the label passed to gpiod_request, which is
>> then shown in /sys/kernel/debug/gpio.
>
> If your problem  is really what turns up in debugfs, then we need
> to figure out a way to label gpios outside of the *gpiod_get* calls.

Let's add a gpiod_set_label call. Currently there's a desc_set_label
in gpiolib, which is static inlined. We can either rename and promote
it to non-static, or add a new wrapping function.

> The string passed in *gpiod_get* is a "connection ID" not a proper
> name for the GPIO.

I see. Perhaps we should not pass this to gpiod_request as the label,
or add a comment stating consumers can use the new gpiod_set_label call
to change it.

Cheers,
ChenYu