From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Harish Jenny K N <harish_kandiga@mentor.com>,
Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com>,
Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] dt-bindings: gpio: Add gpio-repeater bindings
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 09:12:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXOJSZUDmn8aeTynN0TKCS5hJR+uMSinOmgbmA8YmsQjw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJLJPSYroX0mbBUpgWPV0oEvKEUNC-VZt4XFDF8tLuNFA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Rob,
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 4:04 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:17 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:06 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:42:50AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > Add Device Tree bindings for a GPIO repeater, with optional translation
> > > > of physical signal properties. This is useful for describing explicitly
> > > > the presence of e.g. an inverter on a GPIO line, and was inspired by the
> > > > non-YAML gpio-inverter bindings by Harish Jenny K N
> > > > <harish_kandiga@mentor.com>[1].
> > > >
> > > > Note that this is different from a GPIO Nexus Node[2], which cannot do
> > > > physical signal property translation.
> > >
> > > It can't? Why not? The point of the passthru mask is to not do
> > > translation of flags, but without it you are always doing translation of
> > > cells.
> >
> > Thanks for pushing me deeper into nexuses!
> > You're right, you can map from one type to another.
> > However, you cannot handle the "double inversion" of an ACTIVE_LOW
> > signal with a physical inverter added:
> >
> > nexus: led-nexus {
> > #gpio-cells = <2>;
> > gpio-map = <0 0 &gpio2 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>, // inverted
> > <1 0 &gpio2 20 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>, // noninverted
> > <2 0 &gpio2 21 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; // inverted
> > gpio-map-mask = <3 0>;
> > // default gpio-map-pass-thru = <0 0>;
> > };
> >
> > leds {
> > compatible = "gpio-leds";
> > led6-inverted {
> > gpios = <&nexus 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > };
> > led7-noninverted {
> > gpios = <&nexus 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > };
> > led8-double-inverted { // FAILS: still inverted
> > gpios = <&nexus 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > };
> > };
> >
> > It "works" if the last entry in gpio-map is changed to GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH.
> > Still, the consumer would see the final translated polarity, and not the
> > actual one it needs to program the consumer for.
>
> I'm not really following. Why isn't a double inversion just the same
> as no inversion?
Because the nexus can only mask and/or substitute bits.
It cannot do a XOR operation on the GPIO flags.
> > > > While an inverter can be described implicitly by exchanging the
> > > > GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH and GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW flags, this has its limitations.
> > > > Each GPIO line has only a single GPIO_ACTIVE_* flag, but applies to both
> > > > th provider and consumer sides:
> > > > 1. The GPIO provider (controller) looks at the flags to know the
> > > > polarity, so it can translate between logical (active/not active)
> > > > and physical (high/low) signal levels.
> > > > 2. While the signal polarity is usually fixed on the GPIO consumer
> > > > side (e.g. an LED is tied to either the supply voltage or GND),
> > > > it may be configurable on some devices, and both sides need to
> > > > agree. Hence the GPIO_ACTIVE_* flag as seen by the consumer must
> > > > match the actual polarity.
> > > > There exists a similar issue with interrupt flags, where both the
> > > > interrupt controller and the device generating the interrupt need
> > > > to agree, which breaks in the presence of a physical inverter not
> > > > described in DT (see e.g. [3]).
> > >
> > > Adding an inverted flag as I've suggested would also solve this issue.
> >
> > As per your suggestion in "Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] gpio: inverter: document
> > the inverter bindings"?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/CAL_JsqLp___2O-naU+2PPQy0QmJX6+aN3hByz-OB9+qFvWgN9Q@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Oh, now I understand. I was misguided by Harish' interpretation
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/dde73334-a26d-b53f-6b97-4101c1cdc185@mentor.com/
> > which assumed an "inverted" property, e.g.
> >
> > inverted = /bits/ 8 <0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0>;
> >
> > But you actually meant a new GPIO_INVERTED flag, to be ORed into the 2nd
> > cell of a GPIO specifier? I.e. add to include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h"
> >
> > /* Bit 6 expresses the presence of a physical inverter */
> > #define GPIO_INVERTED 64
>
> Exactly.
OK, makes sense.
> > We need to be very careful in defining to which side the GPIO_ACTIVE_*
> > applies to (consumer?), and which side the GPIO_INVERTED flag (provider?).
> > Still, this doesn't help if e.g. a FET is used instead of a push-pull
> > inverter, as the former needs translation of other flags (which the
> > nexus can do, the caveats above still applies, though).
>
> Yes. Historically the cells values are meaningful to the provider and
> opaque to the consumer. Standardized cell values changes that
> somewhat. I think we want the active flag to be from the provider's
> prospective because the provider always needs to know. The consumer
> often doesn't need to know. That also means things work without the
> GPIO_INVERTED flag if the consumer doesn't care which is what we have
> today already and we can't go back in time.
>
>
> > Same for adding IRQ_TYPE_INVERTED.
>
> I suppose so, yes.
>
> > Related issue: how to handle physical inverters on SPI chip select lines,
> > if the SPI slave can be configured for both polarities?
>
> Good question. Perhaps in a different way because we have to handle
> both h/w controlled and gpio chip selects.
>
> However, how would one configure the polarity in the device in the
> first place? You have to assert the CS first to give a command to
> reprogram it.
That's indeed true for a simple SPI slave.
But if it is a smarter device (e.g. a generic micro controller), it may use the
system's DTB to configure itself.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-06 8:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-27 8:42 [PATCH v3 0/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] gpiolib: Add GPIOCHIP_NAME definition Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-28 3:38 ` Ulrich Hecht
2019-12-02 21:17 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2019-12-12 10:37 ` Linus Walleij
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] gpiolib: Add support for gpiochipN-based table lookup Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-28 3:38 ` Ulrich Hecht
2019-12-12 13:20 ` Linus Walleij
2019-12-12 13:33 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-12-12 14:36 ` Linus Walleij
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] gpiolib: Add support for GPIO line " Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-28 3:39 ` Ulrich Hecht
2019-12-12 13:40 ` Linus Walleij
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] dt-bindings: gpio: Add gpio-repeater bindings Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-28 3:39 ` Ulrich Hecht
2019-12-03 5:51 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-12-05 21:06 ` Rob Herring
2019-12-06 9:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-12-06 15:03 ` Rob Herring
2020-01-06 8:12 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
2020-01-07 9:22 ` Harish Jenny K N
2020-01-16 5:09 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater driver Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-27 14:15 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2019-11-27 14:33 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-28 3:40 ` Ulrich Hecht
2019-12-03 5:42 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-12-03 8:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-12-03 8:51 ` Harish Jenny K N
2019-12-03 10:51 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2020-01-09 13:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-09 13:49 ` Eugeniu Rosca
2019-12-12 14:34 ` Linus Walleij
2019-12-12 15:24 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-04 0:38 ` Linus Walleij
2020-01-06 8:23 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-08 23:12 ` Linus Walleij
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] docs: gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater documentation Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-28 3:41 ` Ulrich Hecht
2019-12-12 14:42 ` Linus Walleij
2019-12-12 14:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-04 0:21 ` Linus Walleij
2020-01-06 8:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-27 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater section Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-12-03 5:38 ` Harish Jenny K N
2020-01-18 1:46 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater Eugeniu Rosca
2020-01-20 9:33 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-01-20 12:14 ` Eugeniu Rosca
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=CAMuHMdXOJSZUDmn8aeTynN0TKCS5hJR+uMSinOmgbmA8YmsQjw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=erosca@de.adit-jv.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=harish_kandiga@mentor.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=preid@electromag.com.au \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.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).