Re: Linux logs new warning `gpio gpiochip0: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: get_direction failed: -22`

[Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 14:47, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 03:37:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 9:51 AM <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In any case: Linus: what should be our policy here? There are some pinctrl
> > > > drivers which return EINVAL if the pin in question is not in GPIO mode. I don't
> > > > think this is an error. Returning errors should be reserved for read failures
> > > > and so on. Are you fine with changing the logic here to explicitly default to
> > > > INPUT as until recently all errors would be interpreted as such anyway?
> > >
> > > Oh hm I guess. There was no defined semantic until now anyway. Maybe
> > > Andy has something to say about it though, it's very much his pin controller.
> >
> > Driver is doing correct things. If you want to be pedantic, we need to return
> > all possible pin states (which are currently absent from GPIO get_direction()
> > perspective) and even though it's not possible to tell from the pin muxer
> > p.o.v. If function is I2C, it's open-drain, if some other, it may be completely
> > different, but pin muxer might only guesstimate the state of the particular
> > function is and I do not think guesstimation is a right approach.
> >
> > We may use the specific error code, though. and document that semantics.
>
> Brief looking at the error descriptions and the practical use the best (and
> unique enough) choice may be EBADSLT.
>

In any case, I proposed to revert to the previous behavior in
gpiochip_add_data() in my follow-up series so the issue should soon go
away.

Bart