Re: GPIO bindings guidelines (Was: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] gpio: Support for unified device properties interface)

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:28:40 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:51:40 Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
>> > > > can't change these existing ACPI tables, we must support them somehow.
>> > > >
>> > > > This patch series handles it so that:
>> > > >
>> > > >   1) If we can't find given property (e.g "reset-gpios" or
>> > > >      "shutdown-gpios") the index above will refer directly to the GPIO
>> > > >      resource returned from _CRS.
>> > > >
>> > > >   2) If the property is found we ignore index and take it from the
>> > > >      property instead.
>> > > >
>> > > > This has the drawback that we cannot support this:
>> > > >
>> > > >         Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0, ^GPIO, 1, 0, 0}}
>> > > >                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > > > So the second entry in the above is not accessible using
>> > > > gpiod_get_index() and the reason is that we want to support the existing
>> > > > and new ACPI tables where _DSD is not being used.
>> > >
>> > > So this is not using the DT binding but does thing slightly differently then.
>> > > In this case (supporting two incompatible bindings for DT and ACPI), I think
>> > > the only sensible driver implementation would be to know what we are asking
>> > > for and use different devm_gpiod_get_index statements based on the firmware
>> > > interface.
>> >
>> > Yes something like that is probably needed.
>> >
>> > Alternatively (I didn't try if this works) we could do it so that
>> > when we see:
>> >
>> >         gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "shutdown", 1);
>> >
>> > we check first for the property ("shutdown-gpios"), and check if it has
>> > more than one entry in the value, like:
>> >
>> >         Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0, ^GPIO, 1, 0, 0}}
>> >
>> > and in that case return the second entry. If we find this instead:
>> >
>> >         Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0 }}
>> >
>> > we just ignore the index.
>> >
>> > Last if there is no _DSD the index refers directly to the GPIO resource
>> > in _CRS.
>> >
>> > This would support both _DSD and non-_DSD at the same time but it makes
>> > the implementation more complex.
>>
>> I think the main problem with that approach is that it makes the common
>> code more error-prone in case of unintentionally broken device descriptions,
>> because it less often returns an error.
>
> Moreover, we need to clarify what situation we're really talking about.
>
> For one, drivers using the unified interface only will always use names for
> GPIOs, because they have to assume that either a DT or ACPI w/ _DSD is present.
> This is the cost of keeping those drivers firmware interface agnostic.
>
> So it looks like we're not talking about this case here.
>
> Now, if there's no DT or no _DSD in the ACPI tables for the given device
> *and* the driver wants to use its GPIOs anyway, it has to be ACPI-aware to
> some extent, because in that case the device ID it has been matched against
> tells it what the meaning of the GpioIo resources in the _CRS is.
>
> Then, the driver needs to do something like:
>
>         if (!device_property_present(dev, "known_property_that_should_be_present")
>             && ACPI_COMPANION(dev))
>                 acpi_probe_gpios(dev);
>
> and in the acpi_probe_gpios() routine there may be checks like:
>
>         if (device_has_id(dev, "MARY0001")) {
>                 The first pin in the first GpioIo resource in _CRS is "fred" and
>                 it is active-low.
>                 The third pin in the second GpioIo resource in _CRS is "steve"
>                 and it is not active-low.
>         } else if (device_has_id(dev, "JANE0002")) {
>                 The first pin in the second GpioIo resource in _CRS is "fred" and
>                 it is not active-low.
>                 The second pin in the first GpioIo resource in _CRS is "steve"
>                 and it is active-low.
>         }
>
> and so on.  Of course, there may be drivers knowing that the meaning of the
> GpioIo resources in _CRS is the same for all devices handled by them, in which
> case they will not need to check device IDs, but the core has now way of
> knowing that.  Only the drivers have that information and the core has now
> way to figure out what to do for a given specific device.
>
> So here's a radical idea: Why don't we introduce something like
>
>         acpi_enumerate_gpio(dev, name, GpioIo_index, pin_index, active_low)
>
> such that after calling, say, acpi_enumerate_gpio(dev, "fred", 0, 0, true) the
> driver can do something like:
>
>         desc = get_gpiod_by_name(dev, "fred");
>
> and it'll all work.  Then, the only part of the driver that really needs to be
> ACPI-specific will be the acpi_probe_gpios() function calling acpi_enumerate_gpio()
> in accordance with what the device ID is.

I like this idea. It doesn't complicate the GPIO interface (i.e. no
"if you are on ACPI and no _DSD is present then gpiod_get() will
behave that way...") and does the plumbing behind the scenes.

I will also allow us to finally push the use of names instead of
indexes in the GPIO API. I'm all for it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/