From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loys Ollivier Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: dts: meson: Fix mmc cd-gpios polarity Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:30:20 +0100 Message-ID: <861s5fmknn.fsf@baylibre.com> References: <1547134822-18498-1-git-send-email-lollivier@baylibre.com> <7hy37rm0j6.fsf@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Return-path: In-reply-to: <7hy37rm0j6.fsf@baylibre.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Blumenstingl Cc: Kevin Hilman , Loys Ollivier , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Jerome Brunet List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri 11 Jan 2019 at 19:55, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Martin Blumenstingl writes: > >> Hi, >> >> some nit-picks as well as my Tested-by (in case it's not too late) below. >> thank you for taking care of this! >> You're welcome ! >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:40 PM Loys Ollivier >> wrote: >>> >>> Commit 89a5e15bcba8 ("gpio/mmc/of: Respect polarity in the device tree") >>> changed the behavior of "cd-inverted" to follow the device tree bindings >>> specification. >>> Lines specifying "cd-inverted" are now "active high". >> this depends on the polarity from the cd-gpios property. above commit >> caused cd-inverted to be applied twice (effectively making it a >> no-op). thus "cd-inverted" only means "active high" if cd-gpios also >> sets GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH. if the polarity in cd-gpios is GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW >> together with "cd-inverted" then the GPIO will be treated as active >> low. >> Hum ok so there's more to it than the commit message. I'll come by with something clearer for a v4. Thank you for the clarification. >>> Fix the SD card for meson by setting the cd-gpios as "active low" >>> according >>> to the boards specifications. >> not only switching to GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW, also dropping "cd-inverted" >> Indeed. >>> Fixes: 89a5e15bcba8 ("gpio/mmc/of: Respect polarity in the device tree") >> in my patches for the 32-bit boards I used the commit which added SD >> card support to the board for the Fixes tag. however, I'm fine with >> this as well (I just wanted to point out that there's a small >> difference in our commits). >> OK, I treat fixes tags as: from the introduction (or discovery) of a regression (or bug), the "Fixes" commit will patch the commit that introduced the regression. Hence why I tagged the commit from which the platform was not acting correctly anymore. If that's fine for you it's fine for me as well :) >>> Signed-off-by: Loys Ollivier >> on my Khadas VIM(1), using Kevin's v5.0/fixes branch: >> Tested-by: Martin Blumenstingl > > I can add this tested-by tag in my v5.0/fixes branch for now, and can > replace it with a follow up if Loys can update the changelog with your > suggestions/clarifications. > Will do. > Thanks, > > Kevin -- -L