[U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: gpio: handle GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW flag in DT

[Stephen Warren]

On 04/11/2016 09:12 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 09:10, Eric Nelson <eric at nelint.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 04/11/2016 07:59 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> On 11 April 2016 at 08:55, Eric Nelson <eric at nelint.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2016 07:47 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> On 10 April 2016 at 08:48, Eric Nelson <eric at nelint.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/09/2016 11:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4 April 2016 at 11:50, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/03/2016 08:07 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/02/2016 08:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/02/2016 09:13 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 10:46 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:41:04PM -0700, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/28/2016 09:57 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 01:12:11PM -0700, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Device tree parsing of GPIO nodes is currently ignoring flags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add support for GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW by checking for the presence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the flag and setting the desc->flags field to the driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model constant GPIOD_ACTIVE_LOW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The intent of the change is good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why we need to remove gpio_find_and_xlate(); it provides an API
>>>>>>>> for clients so they don't need to know how to access driver functionality
>>>>>>>> through the ops pointer, which I think is an internal/private implementation
>>>>>>>> detail. Is that detail exposed to clients in other places? If so, removing
>>>>>>>> the wrapper seems fine. If not, I suspect it's a deliberate abstraction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems a bit pedantic, but since Linux does it this way I think we
>>>>>>> should follow along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric you still get to remove the code from all the GPIO drivers - the
>>>>>>> difference is just creating a common function to call when no xlate()
>>>>>>> method is available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please take a look at what Stephen suggests?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got it. I'm just not sure about where to start (before or after
>>>>>> the patch set you sent) and whether to also remove offset parsing
>>>>>> from gpio_find_and_xlate().
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which patch did I send? My understanding is:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the time I sent this, you had just submitted the patch set adding
>>>> more driver-model support for block devices.
>>>>
>>>>          http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-April/251095.html
>>>>
>>>>> - Add my review/ack tag to the patches as necessary
>>>>> - Drop the tegra patch
>>>>> - Update gpio_find_and_xlate() to call a default function if there is
>>>>> no xlate() method
>>>>> - Resend the series
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure about removing the existing functionality from
>>>>> gpio_find_and_xlate(), but my guess is that it is best to move it to
>>>>> your default function, so that gpio_find_and_xlate() doesn't include
>>>>> any default behaviour in the case where there is a xlate() method.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewing the use of the offset field did yield some information about
>>>> the broken sunxi support and also that Vybrid was also missing
>>>> the xlate routine.
>>>>
>>>> Since reviewing your patch sets (driver model updates for blk and also
>>>> driver model updates for mmc) will take some time, so I'll base an
>>>> updated patch set on master. My guess is that any merge issues will
>>>> be trivial.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right.
>>>>
>>>> I'll remove your acks in the updated patch set, since the updates
>>>> to the drivers won't drop the xlate field, but will connect them
>>>> to the common (__maybe_unused) routine. This will prevent the code
>>>> from leaking into machines like Tegra that don't need the common code.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you can drop the xlate() implementations from the
>>> functions, though, and those at the patches I acked.
>>>
>>> I don't think you need __maybe_unused
>>>
>>> static int gpio_find_and_xlate(...)
>>> {
>>>     get ops...
>>>
>>>     if (ops->xlate)
>>>        return ops->xlate(....)
>>>     else
>>>        return gpio_default_xlate()...
>>> }
>>>
>>> gpio_default_xlate() (or whatever name you use) should be exported so
>>> drivers can use it.
>>>
>>
>> This will leak gpio_default_xlate (locally named gpio_xlate_offs_flags)
>> into machines that don't need it.
>>
>> I can go the route you suggest above, but it will cost the tegra
>> and sandbox builds ~64 bytes ;)
>>
>
> Sure, but we can live with that.

You can avoid that by requiring that ops->xlate always be non-NULL, and 
simply referencing the default function from drivers that want to use 
it. Not a big deal either way though.