Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/4] ASoC: s3c64xx/smartq: use dynamic registration

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7357 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:28:33PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:00:45PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote:
> >> >> On 07/15/2014 09:36 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Monday 14 July 2014 19:36:24 Mark Brown wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 08:23:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Monday 14 July 2014 18:18:12 Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Yes. But now that you say it the gpiod_direction_output() call is
> >> >>>>>>> missing
> >> >>>>>>> from this patch.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I'm lost now. The GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH I added comes from
> >> >>>>>> Documentation/gpio/board.txt
> >> >>>>>> and as Linus Walleij explained to me the other day, the lookup is
> >> >>>>>> supposed
> >> >>>>>> to replace devm_gpio_request_one(), which in turn replaced both the
> >> >>>>>> gpio_request and the gpio_direction_output(). Do I need to put the
> >> >>>>>> gpiod_direction_output() back or is there another interface for that
> >> >>>>>> when
> >> >>>>>> registering the board gpios?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Indeed.  If you *do* need an explicit _output() then that sounds to me
> >> >>>>> like we either need a gpiod_get_one() or an extension to the table,
> >> >>>>> looking at the code it seems like this is indeed the case.  We can set
> >> >>>>> if the GPIO is active high/low, or open source/drain but there's no flag
> >> >>>>> for the initial state.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> (adding Alexandre and the gpio list)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> GPIO people: any guidance on how a board file should set a gpio to
> >> >>>> output/default-high in a GPIO_LOOKUP() table to replace a
> >> >>>> devm_gpio_request_one() call in a device driver with devm_gpiod_get()?
> >> >>>> Do we need to add an interface extension to do this, e.g. passing
> >> >>>> GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH as the flags rather than GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The way I see it, GPIO mappings (whether they are done using the
> >> >>> lookup tables, DT, or ACPI) should only care about details that are
> >> >>> relevant to the device layout and that should be abstracted to the
> >> >>> driver (e.g. whether the GPIO is active low or open drain) so drivers
> >> >>> do not need to check X conditions every time they want to drive the
> >> >>> GPIO.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Direction and initial value, on the other hand, are clearly properties
> >> >>> that ought to be set by the driver itself. Thus my expectation here
> >> >>> would be that the driver sets the GPIO direction and initial value as
> >> >>> soon as it gets it using gpiod_direction_output(). In other words,
> >> >>> there is no replacement for gpio_request_one() with the gpiod
> >> >>> interface. Is there any use-case that cannot be covered by calling
> >> >>> gpiod_direction_output() right after gpiod_get()? AFAICT this is what
> >> >>> gpio_request_one() was doing anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with you that this is something that should be done in the driver
> >> >> and not in the lookup table. I think that it is still a good idea to have a
> >> >> replacement for gpio_request_one with the new GPIO descriptor API. A large
> >> >> share of the drivers want to call either gpio_direction_input() or
> >> >> gpio_direction_output() right after requesting the GPIO. Combining both the
> >> >> requesting and the configuration of the GPIO into one function call makes
> >> >> the code a bit shorter and also simplifies the error handling. Even more so
> >> >> if e.g. the GPIO is optional. This was one of the main reasons why
> >> >> gpio_request_one was introduced, see the commit[1] that added it.
> >> >
> >> > I am not opposed to it as a convenience function. Note that since the
> >> > open-source and open-drain flags are already handled by the lookup
> >> > table, the only flags it should handle are those related to direction,
> >> > value, and (maybe) sysfs export.
> >>
> >> Problem is, too much convenience functions seems to ultimately kill convenience.
> >>
> >> The canonical way to request a GPIO is by providing a (device,
> >> function, index) triplet to gpiod_get_index(). Since most functions
> >> only need one GPIO, we have gpiod_get(device, function) which is
> >> basically an alias to gpiod_get_index(device, function, 0) (note to
> >> self: we should probably inline it).
> >>
> >> On top of these comes another set of convenience functions,
> >> gpiod_get_optional() and gpiod_get_index_optional(), which return NULL
> >> instead of -ENOENT if the requested GPIO mapping does not exist. This
> >> is useful for the common case where a driver can work without a GPIO.
> >>
> >> Of course these functions all have devm counterparts, so we currently
> >> have 8 (devm_)gpiod_get(_index)(_optional) functions.
> >>
> >> If we are to add functions with an init flags parameter, we will end
> >> with 16 functions. That starts to be a bit too much to my taste, and
> >> maybe that's where GPIO consumers should sacrifice some convenience to
> >> preserve a comprehensible GPIO API.
> >>
> >> There might be other ways to work around this though. For instance, we
> >> could replace the _optional functions by a GPIOF_OPTIONAL flag to be
> >> passed to a more generic function that would also accept direction and
> >> init value flags. Actually I am not seeing any user of the _optional
> >> variant in -next, so maybe we should just do this. Thierry, since you
> >> introduced the _optional functions, can we get your thoughts about
> >> this?
> >
> > I personally prefer explicit naming of the functions rather than putting
> > a bunch of flags into some parameter. If you're overly concerned about
> > the amount of convenience functions, perhaps the _index variants can be
> > left out for gpiod_get_one(). I'd argue that if drivers want to deal
> > with that level of detail anyway, they may just as well add the index
> > explicitly when calling the function.
> >
> > While we're at it, gpiod_get_one() doesn't sound like a very good name.
> > All other variants only request "one" as well. Perhaps something like
> > gpiod_get_with_flags() would be a better name.
> >
> > Then again, maybe rather than add a new set of functions we should bite
> > the bullet and change gpiod_get() (and variants) to take an additional
> > flags parameter. There aren't all that many users yet (I count 26
> > outside of drivers/gpio), so maybe now would still be a good time to do
> > that.
> 
> That sounds reasonable indeed. And preferable to getting an aneurysm
> after trying to spell devm_gpiod_get_index_optional_with_flags().
> 
> This also makes the most sense since most GPIO users will want to set
> a direction and value right after obtaining one. So if there is no
> objection I will probably start refactoring gpiod_get() this week.

Sounds good to me.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]