Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: deprecate and track the removal of GPIO workarounds for regulators

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 03:15:13PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 4:08 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > I believe pwrseq could actually be used to hide the enable counting
> > > for GPIOs behind a faux GPIO chip and the consumer would never see a
> > > pwrseq handle - they would instead use GPIO consumer interfaces and
> > > we'd have to agree on what logic would we put behind gpiod_set_value()
> > > (should it effectively work as gpiod_enable() meaning: value is 1 as
> > > long as at least one user sets it to 1?) and
> > > gpiod_direction_input()/output() (same thing: highest priority is
> > > gpiod_direction_output(HIGH) and as long as at least one user sets it
> > > as such, we keep it).

> > Like I say that doesn't do the right thing since other users need to be
> > able to see when something changes on the GPIO.  If that just happens on
> > normal gpiolib then that complicates usage for the default case since
> > they now have to worry about things not actually happening when
> > requested which doesn't seem ideal.

> If I understand correctly, regulator_ena_gpio_ctrl()[1] changes the
> GPIO value (even if it's shared) and then notifies regulator consumers
> about a DISABLE event. Now if we'd be implicitly sharing the GPIO with
> an enable-counter, we could possibly emit an event that's a
> false-positive?

Yes (or vice versa for enable).  If the device thinks power got pulled
when it didn't it might get confused about what the hardware is doing.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature