lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] i2c-mux-gpio: Split plat- and dt-specific code up
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 07:21:02PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2019-04-25 16:37, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 09:25:24PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> >> On 2019-04-24 14:34, Serge Semin wrote:
> >>> The main idea of this patchset was to add the dt-based GPIOs support
> >>> in i2c-mux-gpio driver. In particular we needed to have the full GPIOs
> >>> specifier being handled including the dt-flags like GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH,
> >>> GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW, etc. Due to using a legacy GPIO interface the former
> >>> driver implementation didn't provide this ability.
> >>
> >> I'm curious why active low/high is of any importance? That will only affect
> >> the state numbering, but I fail to see any relevance in that numbering. It's
> >> just numbers, no?
> >>
> >> If all the pins are inverted (anything else seems very strange), just
> >> reverse the order. I.e. for a 4-way mux, use 3, 2, 1, 0 instead of
> >> 0, 1, 2, 3.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> > I may misunderstood you, but active low/high flag has nothing to do with
> > pins ordering. It is relevant to an individual pin setting, most likely
> > related with hardware setup.
>
> I was not talking about pin order. I was obviously referring to the
> state order.
>
> > Here is a simple example:
> > i2cmux {
> > compatible = "i2c-mux-gpio";
> > mux-gpios = <&gpioa 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
> > &control 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH
> > &last 5 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > };
>
> So, with this, instead of having two pins active-low and using state 3,
> you could use state 6 with all pins active-high. Same thing. I.e., use
> "state ^ 5" instead of the "direct" state (whatever that is, the state
> numbers have no real meaning, they are just numbers).
>
> > In this setup we've got some i2c-mux with GPIOs-driven channel selector.
> > First channel is selected by GPIO#0 of controller &gpioa, second one -
> > by GPIO#2 of controller &control and third - by GPIO#3 of controller
> > &last. In accordance with the i2c_mux_gpio_set() method of i2c-mux-gpio
> > driver a GPIO from this set will be driven high in case of a corresponding
> > mux channel being enabled. But as you can see from the "mux-gpios" property
> > these GPIOs aren't identical. First of all they belong to different
> > controller and most importantly they've got different active-attribute.
> > This attribute actually means the straight or inverted activation policy.
> > So in case of ACTIVE_HIGH flag you get a straight policy. If you set GPIO'
> > value the hardware pin will be driven high, and if you clear it GPIO'
> > value the hardware pin will be pushed to ground. In case ACTIVE_LOW flag
> > is specified, the GPIO and actual hardware pin values are inverted.
> > So if you set GPIO to one, the hardware pin will be driven to zero,
> > and vise-versa. All this logic is implemented in the gpiod subsystem
> > of the kernel and can be defined in dts scripts, while legacy GPIO
> > subsystem relied on the drivers to handle this.
> >
> > Yeah, it might be confusing, but some hardware is designed this way, so
> > the ordinary GPIO outputs are inverted on the way to the i2c-mux channel
> > activators. For instance in case if some level-shifter is used as a single
> > channel i2c-mux and we don't want i2c-bus being always connected to a bus
> > behind it. Such level-shifters are usually activated by ACTIVE_LOW signals.
>
> See above, you could just adjust the state numbers instead.
>

Ahh, now I see what you meant. Sorry for explaining the obvious.)

It is definitely a solution in case if active-low pins used for channel
selection, but it seems more like a hack than a best choice. The main
problem is that the hardware programmer needs to take into account the
active-{low,high} flags when assigning the reg-values of subnodes. While in
case if these flags are supported by GPIO subsystem itself, the reg
properties can be the same as if all GPIOs were active-high. As for me
this is a good simplification, which also makes the i2c-mux-gpio nodes
more readable.

> > In addition there are other than ACTIVE_LOW/ACTIVE_HIGH flags available for
> > GPIOs in dts, like GPIO_PUSH_PULL, GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN, GPIO_OPEN_SOURCE, which are
> > also specific not only to the GPIO functionality but to the target port and
> > hardware design in general. So the support of dt- GPIO-specifiers is very
> > important to properly describe the hardware setup.
>
> These things are another matter. I thought this was supposed to be
> controlled with pinctrl drivers, but now that I look I see that gpio
> drivers can do this directly without help from pinctrl. That's just
> not how it has been done on the platforms I have been using...
>
> So, ok, but open-drain/open-source/push-pull should perhaps have been
> mentioned more prominently. (I now see that I managed to read past a
> mention of open-drain in the commit message for 5/5)
>

Yeah, these flags is another positive side of supporting the full dt GPIO
specifiers.

-Sergey

> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> > -Sergey
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Peter
> >>
> >>> On the way of adding the full dt-GPIO flags support a small set of
> >>> refactorings has been done in order to keep the platform_data-based
> >>> systems support, make the code more readable and the alterations - clearer.
> >>> In general the whole changes might be considered as the plat- and dt-
> >>> specific code split up. In first patch we unpinned the platform-specific
> >>> method of GPIO-chip probing. The second patch makes the driver to return
> >>> an error if of-based (last resort path) failed to retrieve the driver
> >>> private data. The next three patches is the sequence of initial channel
> >>> info retrieval, platform_data-specific code isolation and finally full
> >>> dt-based GPIOs request method introduction. The last patch does what
> >>> we inteded this patchset for in the first place - adds the full dt-GPIO
> >>> specifiers support.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Serge Semin (5):
> >>> i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin a platform-based device initialization
> >>> i2c-mux-gpio: Return an error if no config data found
> >>> i2c-mux-gpio: Save initial channel number to the idle data field
> >>> i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin the platform-specific GPIOs request code
> >>> i2c-mux-gpio: Create of-based GPIOs request method
> >>>
> >>> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpio.c | 224 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >>> 1 file changed, 146 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-25 22:03    [W:0.062 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site