| Message ID | 1509396602-1936-2-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 15:49 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > This reverts commit 72d3200061776264941be1b5a9bb8e926b3b30a5. > > We cannot blindly query the direction of all GPIOs when the pins are > first registered. The get_direction callback normally triggers a > read/write to hardware, but we shouldn't be touching the hardware for > an individual GPIO until after it's been properly requested. > > + /* REVISIT: most hardware initializes GPIOs as inputs > (often > + * with pullups enabled) so power usage is minimized. > Linux > + * code should set the gpio direction first thing; > but until > + * it does, and in case chip->get_direction is not > set, we may > + * expose the wrong direction in sysfs. > + */ Can you preserve the style and indentation of the commit? Does checkpatch warn you about style? (It's apparently not a net subsystem) > + desc->flags = !chip->direction_input ? (1 << > FLAG_IS_OUT) : 0; > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_PINCTRL
On 10/31/17 4:08 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Can you preserve the style and indentation of the commit? > Does checkpatch warn you about style? (It's apparently not a net > subsystem) I ran checkpatch on it and it didn't complain. Also, I don't think that when reverting a patch, I am also supposed to to fix cosmetic changes of the code that existed before the original patch.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> I ran checkpatch on it and it didn't complain.
In this case checkpatch should have given you an error due to the
missing Signed-off-by tag :-)
On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 07:28 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 10/31/17 4:08 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Can you preserve the style and indentation of the commit? > > Does checkpatch warn you about style? (It's apparently not a net > > subsystem) > > I ran checkpatch on it and it didn't complain. Hmm... Okay. > Also, I don't think that when reverting a patch, I am also supposed > to > to fix cosmetic changes of the code that existed before the original > patch. Point taken. Up to Linus how to proceed, it's indeed cosmetic non-code change.
On 10/31/17 7:33 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > In this case checkpatch should have given you an error due to the > missing Signed-off-by tag:-) Indeed! Something must be broken in my checkpatch invocation. I did think that it was odd that I didn't get any complaints. Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c index eb80dac4e26a..60553af4c004 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c @@ -1221,31 +1221,14 @@ int gpiochip_add_data(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data) struct gpio_desc *desc = &gdev->descs[i]; desc->gdev = gdev; - /* - * REVISIT: most hardware initializes GPIOs as inputs - * (often with pullups enabled) so power usage is - * minimized. Linux code should set the gpio direction - * first thing; but until it does, and in case - * chip->get_direction is not set, we may expose the - * wrong direction in sysfs. - */ - - if (chip->get_direction) { - /* - * If we have .get_direction, set up the initial - * direction flag from the hardware. - */ - int dir = chip->get_direction(chip, i); - if (!dir) - set_bit(FLAG_IS_OUT, &desc->flags); - } else if (!chip->direction_input) { - /* - * If the chip lacks the .direction_input callback - * we logically assume all lines are outputs. - */ - set_bit(FLAG_IS_OUT, &desc->flags); - } + /* REVISIT: most hardware initializes GPIOs as inputs (often + * with pullups enabled) so power usage is minimized. Linux + * code should set the gpio direction first thing; but until + * it does, and in case chip->get_direction is not set, we may + * expose the wrong direction in sysfs. + */ + desc->flags = !chip->direction_input ? (1 << FLAG_IS_OUT) : 0; } #ifdef CONFIG_PINCTRL