Re: [PATCH 3/3] WATCHDOG: mtx1-wdt: fix GPIO toggling

[Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>]

On Tuesday 07 June 2011 11:59:32 Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > Commit e391be76 (MIPS: Alchemy: Clean up GPIO registers and accessors)
> > changed the way the GPIO was toggled. Prior to this patch, we would
> > always actively drive the GPIO output to either 0 or 1, this patch
> > drove the GPIO active to 0, and put the GPIO in tristate to drive it
> > to 1, unfortunately this does not work, revert back to active driving.
> > 
> > Using a signed variable (gstate) to hold the gpio state and using a bit-
> > wise operation on it also resulted in toggling value from 1 to -2 since
> > the variable is signed. This value was then passed on to gpio_direction_
> > output, which always perform a if (value) ... to set the value to the
> > gpio, so we were always writing a 1 to this GPIO instead of 1 -> 0 -> 1
> > ...
> > 
> > CC: stable@kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
> > index 16086f8..9756da9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
> > @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static struct {
> > 
> >  	int default_ticks;
> >  	unsigned long inuse;
> >  	unsigned gpio;
> > 
> > -	int gstate;
> > +	unsigned int gstate;
> > 
> >  } mtx1_wdt_device;
> >  
> >  static void mtx1_wdt_trigger(unsigned long unused)
> > 
> > @@ -78,11 +78,8 @@ static void mtx1_wdt_trigger(unsigned long unused)
> > 
> >  		ticks--;
> >  	
> >  	/* toggle wdt gpio */
> > 
> > -	mtx1_wdt_device.gstate = ~mtx1_wdt_device.gstate;
> > -	if (mtx1_wdt_device.gstate)
> > -		gpio_direction_output(mtx1_wdt_device.gpio, 1);
> > -	else
> > -		gpio_direction_input(mtx1_wdt_device.gpio);
> > +	mtx1_wdt_device.gstate = !mtx1_wdt_device.gstate;
> > +	gpio_direction_output(mtx1_wdt_device.gpio, mtx1_wdt_device.gstate);
> 
> Would gpio_set_value() be more appropriate here?  Isn't the gpio always
> an output after the first call?

I wanted to first get it fixed, then eventually correctly updated. Makes sense 
to have this merged in the patch to match the comment of my patch.
--
Florian