On 3/7/19 10:12 AM, Harald Geyer wrote:
> On 06.03.2019 22:56, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 3/6/19 9:17 AM, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>> Marek Vasut writes:
>>>> On 3/5/19 10:36 PM, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>>>> Marek Vasut writes:
>>>>>> On 3/5/19 5:10 PM, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>>>>>> Marek Vasut writes:
>>>>>>>> On 3/5/19 11:07 AM, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> marek.va...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reword the binding document to make it clear how the propeties
>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> and which properties affect which other properties.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Harald Geyer <har...@ccbib.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto...@renesas.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>> To: devicet...@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> V2: - Make "gpios" a mandatory property
>>>>>>>>>>     - Reword "gpio-states" property description
>>>>>>>>>>     - Change "enable-gpio" to "enable-gpios" to match modern
>>>>>>>>>> DT rules
>>>>>>>>>> Note: The recent gpio-regulator rework caused breakage. While the
>>>>>>>>>>       changes in the gpio-regulator code were according to the DT
>>>>>>>>>>       binding document, they stopped working with older DTs. Make
>>>>>>>>>>       the binding document clearer to prevent such breakage in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>       future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the update. I think it addresses all my concerns
>>>>>>>>> except for
>>>>>>>>> one:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +- gpios-states    : State of GPIO pins in "gpios" array that
>>>>>>>>>> is set until
>>>>>>>>>> +              changed by the first consumer. 0: LOW, 1: HIGH.
>>>>>>>>>> +              Default is LOW if nothing else is specified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still believe this not true: There is no guarantee that the
>>>>>>>>> regulator
>>>>>>>>> core won't change the state of GPIO pins before the first
>>>>>>>>> consumer comes
>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would it do that ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the regulator core doesn't know about this driver specific
>>>>>>> property at all. And without any constraints placed by consumers,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> core is free to choose any state whatsoever at any point in time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But git grep seems to disagree, see
>>>>>> drivers/regulator/gpio-regulator.c:
>>>>>>                     ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np,
>>>>>> "gpios-states", i,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The core sets the pins to such a value until the consumer takes over.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have a misunderstanding of terminology. When I write
>>>>> "regulator
>>>>> core", I mean the driver independent regulator code. The line you
>>>>> quote
>>>>> above is part of the gpio-regulator driver and thus not part of what
>>>>> I call the "regulator core".
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICS the data from the property is only stored in a driver specific
>>>>> data structure (and not used at all outside of probe) but never passed
>>>>> to what I call the regulator core.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you believe there is a guarantee that the value set during
>>>>> probeing is preserved until a consumer takes over?
>>>>
>>>> It is the only sensible behavior and the behavior I see people expect
>>>> from this property. I presume it solidified in this sort of
>>>> semi-defined
>>>> state, so we're stuck with assuming it behaves this way to maintain
>>>> compatibility.
>>>
>>> Maybe the behaviour you want would be more sensible, but AFAIK it just
>>> isn't true in general (it might work that way by chance in many cases).
>>> If people expect this behaviour, it is a misunderstanding of the old
>>> wording.
>>> I'd prefer we don't have to add a quirk to the regulator subsystem to
>>> cater for a misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> I think, if you really want to go forward with making this behaviour
>>> officially maintained, then we should first add the code to linux and
>>> only then add the promise to the binding document. This isn't the scope
>>> of this patch, so I guess we would need to keep the ambiguous wording as
>>> it is for now. I believe it is more important for a binding document
>>> to be correct than to be sensible.
>>>
>>> However I don't think we actually need to go to such extremes: In linux
>>> we currently have (arm/boot/dts and arm64/boot/dts) 38 uses of this
>>> property in 29 DTs. All the examples, that I studied in some detail,
>>> seem to either don't need this property at all or have a usecase that is
>>> supported by my proposed wording. I don't expect any problems if we just
>>> document the status quo clearly.
>>
>> In that case, provide a suggestion how to document this property better?
> 
> I did: https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg275050.html

I don't like it, but I added it there and sent V3, let's see what others
think.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Reply via email to