Re: [PATCH 1/3] Device tree binding documentation for gpio-switch

Reviving this thread...

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Markus Pargmann [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Monday 14 December 2015 09:45:48 Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Linus Walleij [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Linus Walleij [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Martyn Welch
[off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

Markus Pargmann also did a series that add initial values to
hogs, which is the inverse usecase of this, where you want to
*output* something by default, then maybe also make it available
to userspace.

So what we need to see here is a patch series that does all of these
things:

- Name lines

- Sets them to initial values

- Mark them as read-only

- Mark them as "not used by the operating system" so that they
  can be default-exported to userspace.

No! This should not be a DT property.

Whether I want to control a GPIO in the kernel or userspace is not
known and can change over time. It could simply depend on kernel
config. There is also the case that a GPIO has no connection or kernel
driver until some time later when a DT overlay for an expansion board
is applied.

That's correct. So from a DT point of view, what really matters is
to give things a name, and the hogs and initvals syntax already
has a structure for this that is in use
(from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt):

        qe_pio_a: gpio-controller@1400 {
                compatible = "fsl,qe-pario-bank-a", "fsl,qe-pario-bank";
                reg = <0x1400 0x18>;
                gpio-controller;
                #gpio-cells = <2>;

                line_b {
                        gpio-hog;
                        gpios = <6 0>;
                        output-low;
                        line-name = "foo-bar-gpio";
                };
        };

Markus use this also for initial values. That could easily be used in
a budget version like this:

                line_b {
                        /* Just naming */
                        gpios = <6 0>;
                        line-name = "foo-bar-gpio";
                };

That could grow kind of big though. Or maybe not? How many
GPIO lines are actually properly named in a typical system?

We should limit it to GPIOs with no connection to another node. For
example, I don't want to see a SD card detect in the list as that
should be in the SD host node. However, that is hard to enforce and
can change over time. Removing it would break userspace potentially.
Of course if the kernel starts own a signal that userspace used, then
that potentially breaks userspace regardless of the DT changing. OTOH,
using GPIOs in userspace is kind of use at your own risk.

I see this a bit differently. I would really like to see the each GPIO having
two different names:

I think we are saying the same thing...

- GPIO label: This is the name of the GPIO line in the schematic for example

Yes.

- GPIO use (this is the current semantic of the GPIO name): The use of a GPIO,
  e.g. 'sd-card-detect', 'LED', ...

This should be determined from the compatible string and/or -gpios
prefix. This is the what the function is and "label" is which one.

I think it would be good to describe all GPIO labels in gpiochip subnodes as
gpio-hogging introduced it. This would offer a use-independent naming. The use
of the function could be defined in the device node that is using this gpio.

I think I agree here. You may have a defined function without any
connection to another node. I also think we should encourage simple
GPIO bindings like gpio-leds to be child nodes. Having them at the
top-level is kind of arbitrary. Of course, allowing for both is
required.

As an example perhaps something like this:

        &gpiochip {
                some_interrupt {
                        gpios = <4 0>;
                        line-name = "some_interrupt_line";
                };

                line_b {
                        gpios = <6 0>;
                        line-name = "line-b";
                };
        };

        randomswitch {
                compatible = "gpio-switch";
                gpios = <&gpiochip 4 0>;
                use = "action-trigger";
                read-only;
        };

Also this does seem kind of inconsistent with gpio-hogging and the proposed
gpio-initval. gpio-hogging is defined in subnodes of the gpio chip while
gpio-switches are not. As "gpio-switch" is not really any kind of device it
would perhaps make sense to keep this consistent with gpio-hogging as well and
define it in the same subnodes?
I would be happy about any consistent way.

Yes, as well as gpio leds, keys, etc. bindings. The key is you would
need to be able to start with something minimal and extend it with
specific compatibles.

[...]

quoted

We also have to consider how to handle add-on boards. We probably need
a connector node which can remap connector signals to host signals in
order to have overlays independent of the host board DT. For GPIOs
this is probably a gpio-map property similar to interrupt-map. The
complicated part will be connectors that require pinmux setup of the
host.

Also what about hotplugging gpio-chips? Is there any mechanism to let the
'gpio-switch' know that the GPIO is not there anymore?

There are certainly issues around hotplug and GPIOs. If the
gpio-switch device is a child of the gpio controller, then it should
be possible.

Rob