Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: Use GPIO polarity to generate correct reset sequence

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 05:45:30PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> It would make sense if a single GPIO pin is used for resetting
> several devices, some of them with an active-high reset input and
> others with active-low.
> 
> What matters for a GPIO pin used to source a reset signal is "what
> is the active level at the GPIO pin for the reset to be asserted to
> the connected device(s)."
> 
> If we have a device that requires an active-low reset input, but there
> is some form of inversion in the path to that input from a GPIO, then
> the GPIO _should_ be marked active-high. If the same active-low reset
> input is connected directly to a GPIO, the GPIO _should_ be marked as
> active-low. Thus, to assert reset, writing '1' through
> gpiod_set_value() _should_ assert the reset input on the target device
> in both cases.
> 
> This is why gpiolib supports software inversion - so software engineers
> can think in terms of positive non-inverted logic when programming
> GPIOs.

Thanks for this message, to me it brought new info which I didn't
consider before, which is that if there are *future* boards where some
sort of inversion on the reset signal (likely due to it being shared as
you say), they should be described as GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH, but this patch
locks us out of that possibility.

If I may bring one more data point into the discussion: the switch
binding specifically requests not to describe shared reset lines
(because unrelated drivers might reset the switch after it probed):

  reset-gpios:
    description: |
      GPIO to reset the switch. Use this if mediatek,mcm is not used.
      This property is optional because some boards share the reset line with
      other components which makes it impossible to probe the switch if the
      reset line is used.

so I guess that the probability for a reset signal inversion, even if
it exists, to cause problems in the GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH reinterpretation,
is still low, albeit for a completely different reason than the one I
initially claimed (which is bogus and Krzysztof was right to challenge it).

> Sadly, we keep having people mark active-low signals as "active high"
> in DT, and then have to write '0' to assert the signal. These people
> basically don't understand electronics and/or our GPIO model.

This is the case we seem to be in.

On a scale of safety, having quirks for the affected device trees still
ranks a bit higher, though.