Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: davicom: dm9000: switch to using gpiod API

From: Dmitry Torokhov
Date: Fri Nov 18 2022 - 11:30:39 EST


On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 04:26:38PM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>
>
> Le ven. 18 nov. 2022 à 07:58:21 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 03:33:44PM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > Le mar. 6 sept. 2022 à 13:49:20 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov
> > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > > > This patch switches the driver away from legacy gpio/of_gpio API
> > > to
> > > > gpiod API, and removes use of of_get_named_gpio_flags() which I
> > > want to
> > > > make private to gpiolib.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/net/ethernet/davicom/dm9000.c | 26
> > > ++++++++++++++------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/davicom/dm9000.c
> > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/davicom/dm9000.c
> > > > index 77229e53b04e..c85a6ebd79fc 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/davicom/dm9000.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/davicom/dm9000.c
> > > > @@ -28,8 +28,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/irq.h>
> > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/gpio.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > > >
> > > > #include <asm/delay.h>
> > > > #include <asm/irq.h>
> > > > @@ -1421,8 +1420,7 @@ dm9000_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > int iosize;
> > > > int i;
> > > > u32 id_val;
> > > > - int reset_gpios;
> > > > - enum of_gpio_flags flags;
> > > > + struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
> > > > struct regulator *power;
> > > > bool inv_mac_addr = false;
> > > > u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
> > > > @@ -1442,20 +1440,24 @@ dm9000_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > dev_dbg(dev, "regulator enabled\n");
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - reset_gpios = of_get_named_gpio_flags(dev->of_node,
> > > "reset-gpios", 0,
> > > > - &flags);
> > > > - if (gpio_is_valid(reset_gpios)) {
> > > > - ret = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, reset_gpios, flags,
> > > > - "dm9000_reset");
> > > > + reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset",
> > > GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> > > > + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(reset_gpio);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request reset gpio: %d\n", ret);
> > > > + goto out_regulator_disable;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (reset_gpio) {
> > > > + ret = gpiod_set_consumer_name(reset_gpio, "dm9000_reset");
> > > > if (ret) {
> > > > - dev_err(dev, "failed to request reset gpio %d: %d\n",
> > > > - reset_gpios, ret);
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to set reset gpio name: %d\n",
> > > > + ret);
> > > > goto out_regulator_disable;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* According to manual PWRST# Low Period Min 1ms */
> > > > msleep(2);
> > > > - gpio_set_value(reset_gpios, 1);
> > > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(reset_gpio, 0);
> > >
> > > Why is that 1 magically turned into a 0?
> >
> > Because gpiod uses logical states (think active/inactive), not absolute
> > ones. Here we are deasserting the reset line.
> >
> > >
> > > On my CI20 board I can't get the DM9000 chip to probe correctly
> > > with this
> > > patch (it fails to read the ID).
> > > If I revert this patch then everything works fine.
> >
> > Sorry, it is my fault of course: I missed that board has incorrect
> > annotation for the reset line. I will send out the patch below
> > (formatted properly of course):
>
> So in *theory* you wouldn't fix it like that, because the driver should work
> with old Device Tree files, even if it had a broken property, as long as it
> used to work in the past.
>
> The ci20.dts file however is always built into the kernel and I'm not aware
> of anybody doing things differently. As long as you make that explicit in
> your commit message I think Rob won't mind.
>
> If he does, or if more boards are affected, an alternative is to switch the
> polarity of the GPIO in the driver, like so:
>
> if (of_machine_is_compatible("mips,ci20") &&
> gpiod_is_active_low(reset_gpio)) {
> gpiod_toggle_active_low(reset_gpio);
> }

Right, we are typically hiding this kind of quirks in gpiolib-of instead
of polluting drivers, but yes, it is possible.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry