Re: [PATCH 0/4] add support for bias pull-disable
From: Nuno Sá <hidden>
Date: 2022-07-14 15:42:44
Also in:
linux-acpi, linux-gpio
On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 17:58 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 03:14:17PM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote:quoted
The gpio core looks at 'FLAG_BIAS_DISABLE' in preparation of calling the gpiochip 'set_config()' hook. However, AFAICT, there's no way that this flag is set because there's no support for it in firwmare code. Moreover, in 'gpiod_configure_flags()', only pull-ups and pull-downs are being handled. On top of this, there are some users that are looking at 'PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE' in the 'set_config()' hook. So, unless I'm missing something, it looks like this was never working for these chips. Note that the ACPI case is only compiled tested. At first glance, it seems the current patch is enough but i'm not really sure...So, I looked closer to the issue you are trying to describe here. As far as I understand we have 4 state of BIAS in the hardware: 1/ AS IS (defined by firnware) 2/ Disabled (neither PU, not PD) 3/ PU 4/ PD The case when the default of bias is not disabled (for example specific, and I think very special, hardware may reset it to PD or PU), it's a hardware driver responsibility to inform the framework about the real state of the lines and synchronize it. Another case is when the firmware sets the line in non-disabled state and by some reason you need to disable it. The question is, why?
Not getting this point...
quoted
As a side note, this came to my attention during this patchset [1] (and, ofr OF, was tested with it). [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/20220708093448.42617-5-nuno.sa@analog.com/ (local)Since this provides a GPIO chip, correct?, it's responsibility of the driver to synchronize it, no? Basically if you really don't trust firmware, you may
What do you mean by synchronize?
go via all GPIO lines and switch them to the known (in software) state. This approach on the other hand is error prone, because firmware should know better which pin is used for which purpose, no? If you don't trust firwmare (in some cases), then it's a matter of buggy platform that has to be quirked out.
I'm not getting what you mean by "firmware should know better"? So, basically, and let's take OF as example, you can request a GPIO in OF by doing something like: foo-gpios = <&gpio 1 GPIO_PULL_UP>; In this way, when the consumer driver gets the gpio, all the flags will be properly set so that when we set a direction (for example) the gpiochip's 'set_config()' will be called and the driver does what it needs to setup the pull-up. If we want BIAS_DISABLED on the pin, there's no way to the same as the above. So basically, this can ever happen: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c#L2227 (only possible from the gpiochip cdev interface) So, what I'm proposing is to be possible to do from OF: foo-gpios = <&gpio 1 GPIO_PULL_DISABLE>; And then we will get into the gpiochip's 'set_config()' to disable the pull-up or pull-down. As I said, my device is an input keymap that can export pins as GPIOs (to be consumed by gpio_keys). The pins by default have pull-ups that can be disabled by doing a device i2c write. I'm just trying to use the infrastructure that already exists in gpiolib (for pull-up|down) to accomplish this. There's no pinctrl driver controlling the pins. The device itself controls them and having this device as a pinctrl one is not really applicable. - Nuno Sá