Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> 于2026年6月26日周五 15:38写道：
> > On 26/06/2026 04:15, Sunyun Yang wrote: > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> 于2026年6月25日周四 21:51写道： > >> > >> On 25/06/2026 15:40, Sunyun Yang wrote: > >>> Sunyun Yang <[email protected]> 于2026年6月25日周四 21:26写道： > >>>> > >>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> 于2026年6月25日周四 21:17写道： > >>>>> > >>>>> On 25/06/2026 15:14, Sunyun Yang wrote: > >>>>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> 于2026年6月25日周四 20:54写道： > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 08/05/2026 15:40, [email protected] wrote: > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> +static void lt9611c_reset(struct lt9611c *lt9611c) > >>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 1); > >>>>>>>> + msleep(20); > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 0); > >>>>>>>> + msleep(20); > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 1); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is just plain wrong. Why do you assert, then de-assert and then > >>>>>>> finally assert AGAIN the reset leaving the device in powerdown stage? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I am using software to emulate the hardware RESET button on our EVB. > >>>>>> When the hardware RESET button is pressed while our chip is running, > >>>>>> the signal level changes from HIGH to LOW and then back to HIGH. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Of course, we can also use the following: > >>>>>> static void lt9611c_reset(struct lt9611c *lt9611c) > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 0); > >>>>>> msleep(50); > >>>>>> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 1); > >>>>>> msleep(20); > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Makes no sense either and you just did not get the point and did not > >>>>> answer my question. I asked WHY you leave asserted. Answer "we emulate" > >>>>> is just plain wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> So again please answer: > >>>>> > >>>>> Why do you leave device with reset asserted? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> devicetree: reset-gpios = <&tlmm 128 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > >>>> > >>>> GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH: > >>>> > >>>> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 0); ------ reset pin > >>>> is Low level : Clear the register configuration in the chip to stop > >>>> the chip from working. > >>>> > >>>> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lt9611c->reset_gpio, 1); ------ reset pin > >>>> is high level: The chip resumes operation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Our purpose is: pull the level low to clear the register configuration > >>> in the chip, and then pull it high to allow the MCU inside the chip to > >>> re‑initialize the registers. > >> > >> > >> And you do completely opposite... so that confirms your code is just wrong. > >> > > > > The lontium-lt9611.yaml uses GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH. I am just following the > > rule of this device tree. If I modify the device tree to use > > GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW, > > and use the following code in my driver, then my driver would be correct. > > However, would the existing kernel drivers lontium-lt9611uxc.c and > > lontium-lt9611.c be affected? > > DT has nothing to do here. 1 is assert, 0 is de-assert. Your code does > things opposite to any logic, because you finish function with reset > asserted. > I understand your point, and I will make the changes in the next version. Additionally, I have another question I would like to ask you regarding [email protected]. Since sashiko-bot sometimes has opinions that differ from yours, whose advice should I follow? If I do not adopt sashiko-bot's suggestions, will my patches still be accepted into the upstream Linux kernel? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
