From: Harish Jenny K N <harish_kandiga@mentor.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
Balasubramani Vivekanandan
<balasubramani_vivekanandan@mentor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] gpio: inverter: document the inverter bindings
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:51:47 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6673873d-3ed2-ba98-8448-8047eccc994f@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f47588d5-226a-6a7a-6c74-c0caaafaf572@mentor.com>
Hi Rob,
On 27/08/19 1:17 PM, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>
> On 19/08/19 3:06 PM, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>>
>> On 10/08/19 2:21 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 5:15 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>> There is some level of ambition here which is inherently a bit fuzzy
>>>>> around the edges. ("How long is the coast of Britain?" comes to mind.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely the intention of device tree is not to recreate the schematic
>>>>> in all detail. What we want is a model of the hardware that will
>>>>> suffice for the operating system usecases.
>>>>>
>>>>> But sometimes the DTS files will become confusing: why is this
>>>>> component using GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW when another system
>>>>> doesn't have that flag? If there is an explicit inverter, the
>>>>> DTS gets more readable for a human.
>>>>>
>>>>> But arguable that is case for adding inverters as syntactic
>>>>> sugar in the DTS compiler instead...
>>>> If you really want something more explicit, then add a new GPIO
>>>> 'inverted' flag. Then a device can always have the same HIGH/LOW flag.
>>>> That also solves the abstract it for userspace problem.
>>> I think there are some intricate ontologies at work here.
>>>
>>> Consider this example: a GPIO is controlling a chip select
>>> regulator, say Acme Foo. The chip select
>>> has a pin named CSN. We know from convention that the
>>> "N" at the end of that pin name means "negative" i.e. active
>>> low, and that is how the electronics engineers think about
>>> that chip select line: it activates the IC when
>>> the line goes low.
>>>
>>> The regulator subsystem and I think all subsystems in the
>>> Linux kernel say the consumer pin should be named and
>>> tagged after the datsheet of the regulator.
>>>
>>> So it has for example:
>>>
>>> foo {
>>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>>> cs-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> (It would be inappropriate to name it "csn-gpios" since
>>> we have an established flag for active low. But it is another
>>> of these syntactic choices where people likely do mistakes.)
>>>
>>> I think it would be appropriate for the DT binding to say
>>> that this flag must always be GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW since
>>> the bindings are seen from the component point of view,
>>> and thus this is always active low.
>>>
>>> It would even be reasonable for a yaml schema to enfore
>>> this, if it could. It is defined as active low after all.
>>>
>>> Now if someone adds an inverter on that line between
>>> gpio0 and Acme Foo it looks like this:
>>>
>>> foo {
>>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>>> cs-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> And now we get cognitive dissonance or whatever I should
>>> call it: someone reading this DTS sheet and the data
>>> sheet for the component Acme Foo to troubleshoot
>>> this will be confused: this component has CS active
>>> low and still it is specified as active high? Unless they
>>> also look at the schematic or the board and find the
>>> inverter things are pretty muddy and they will likely curse
>>> and solve the situation with the usual trial-and-error,
>>> inserting some random cursewords as a comment.
>>>
>>> With an intermediate inverter node, the cs-gpios
>>> can go back to GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW and follow
>>> the bindings:
>>>
>>> inv0: inverter {
>>> compatible = "gpio-inverter";
>>> gpio-controller;
>>> #gpio-cells = <1>;
>>> inverted-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> foo {
>>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>>> cs-gpios = <&inv0 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> And now Acme Foo bindings can keep enforcing cs-gpios
>>> to always be tagged GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW.
>> Can you please review/let us know your opinion on this ? I think the idea here is to also isolate the changes to a separate consumer driver and avoid getting inversions inside gpiolib.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Harish Jenny K N
>>
> Can you please comment on this ?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Harish Jenny K N
>
Friendly Reminder.
can we please finalize this ?
Linus has also mentioned in another patchset "[PATCH v2] Input: tsc2007 - use GPIO descriptor" that
he is in favor of introducing explicit inverters in device tree.
Please consider this and let us know your inputs.
Thanks,
Harish Jenny K N
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-30 5:22 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 [this message]
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
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=6673873d-3ed2-ba98-8448-8047eccc994f@mentor.com \
--to=harish_kandiga@mentor.com \
--cc=balasubramani_vivekanandan@mentor.com \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@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).