The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
---
Changes since V1:
* rebased to top-of-linus-tree
* added tag from Daniel, thanks!
Through which tree does this need to go?
drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
index 1c2289ddd555..0fa7d2bd0e48 100644
--- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
+++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
@@ -301,14 +301,14 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
/*
* If the GPIO is not known to be already configured as output, that
- * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either GPIOF_DIR_IN or -EINVAL,
- * change the direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
+ * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either 1 or -EINVAL, change the
+ * direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
* Do not force the GPIO to active when it was already output as it
* could cause backlight flickering or we would enable the backlight too
* early. Leave the decision of the initial backlight state for later.
*/
if (pb->enable_gpio &&
- gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != GPIOF_DIR_OUT)
+ gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != 0)
gpiod_direction_output(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
pb->power_supply = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "power");
--
2.11.0
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
> of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
> ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
> fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Changes since V1:
> * rebased to top-of-linus-tree
> * added tag from Daniel, thanks!
>
> Through which tree does this need to go?
>
> drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> index 1c2289ddd555..0fa7d2bd0e48 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> @@ -301,14 +301,14 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> /*
> * If the GPIO is not known to be already configured as output, that
> - * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either GPIOF_DIR_IN or -EINVAL,
> - * change the direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
> + * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either 1 or -EINVAL, change the
> + * direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
> * Do not force the GPIO to active when it was already output as it
> * could cause backlight flickering or we would enable the backlight too
> * early. Leave the decision of the initial backlight state for later.
> */
> if (pb->enable_gpio &&
> - gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != GPIOF_DIR_OUT)
> + gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != 0)
> gpiod_direction_output(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
>
> pb->power_supply = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "power");
> --
> 2.11.0
>
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:32:16AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
> > of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
> > ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
> > fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since V1:
> > * rebased to top-of-linus-tree
> > * added tag from Daniel, thanks!
> >
> > Through which tree does this need to go?
I think Daniel Thompson has one ...
-Daniel
> >
> > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > index 1c2289ddd555..0fa7d2bd0e48 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > @@ -301,14 +301,14 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > /*
> > * If the GPIO is not known to be already configured as output, that
> > - * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either GPIOF_DIR_IN or -EINVAL,
> > - * change the direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
> > + * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either 1 or -EINVAL, change the
> > + * direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
> > * Do not force the GPIO to active when it was already output as it
> > * could cause backlight flickering or we would enable the backlight too
> > * early. Leave the decision of the initial backlight state for later.
> > */
> > if (pb->enable_gpio &&
> > - gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != GPIOF_DIR_OUT)
> > + gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != 0)
> > gpiod_direction_output(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
> >
> > pb->power_supply = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "power");
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:32:16AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
> > > of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
> > > ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
> > > fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes since V1:
> > > * rebased to top-of-linus-tree
> > > * added tag from Daniel, thanks!
> > >
> > > Through which tree does this need to go?
>
> I think Daniel Thompson has one ...
Sorry, I didn't spot the question at the bottom of the change block.
For backlight patches generally go though Lee Jones' tree.
Daniel.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
> > of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
> > ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
> > fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
Thanks for the Reviewed-by Simon. I have applied it to the original mail.
Do you know why you mail wasn't sent attached to the original thread?
For some reason I received this mail on it's own i.e. not in reply
to the original.
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since V1:
> > * rebased to top-of-linus-tree
> > * added tag from Daniel, thanks!
> >
> > Through which tree does this need to go?
> >
> > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > index 1c2289ddd555..0fa7d2bd0e48 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > @@ -301,14 +301,14 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > /*
> > * If the GPIO is not known to be already configured as output, that
> > - * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either GPIOF_DIR_IN or -EINVAL,
> > - * change the direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
> > + * is, if gpiod_get_direction returns either 1 or -EINVAL, change the
> > + * direction to output and set the GPIO as active.
> > * Do not force the GPIO to active when it was already output as it
> > * could cause backlight flickering or we would enable the backlight too
> > * early. Leave the decision of the initial backlight state for later.
> > */
> > if (pb->enable_gpio &&
> > - gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != GPIOF_DIR_OUT)
> > + gpiod_get_direction(pb->enable_gpio) != 0)
> > gpiod_direction_output(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
> >
> > pb->power_supply = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "power");
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:12:57AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Simon Horman wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> > > The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
>> > > of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
>> > > ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
>> > > fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
>> > > Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
>>
>> Thanks for the Reviewed-by Simon. I have applied it to the original mail.
>>
>> Do you know why you mail wasn't sent attached to the original thread?
>> For some reason I received this mail on it's own i.e. not in reply
>> to the original.
>
> No, not off hand. Perhaps I responded to the email in some unusual way
> but by now I don't recall. In any case I'll try to be more careful
> in future.
I see Lee is using gmail for sending, so I assume also for receiving.
While I did receive Simon's reply in-thread, lately I had issues with gmail
not always doing so, and sometimes failing to do deduplication when receiving
email through multiple paths (mailing lists and/or directly).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:12:57AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Simon Horman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
> > > of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
> > > ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
> > > fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks for the Reviewed-by Simon. I have applied it to the original mail.
>
> Do you know why you mail wasn't sent attached to the original thread?
> For some reason I received this mail on it's own i.e. not in reply
> to the original.
No, not off hand. Perhaps I responded to the email in some unusual way
but by now I don't recall. In any case I'll try to be more careful
in future.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:12:57AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> > > The documentation was wrong, gpiod_get_direction() returns 0/1 instead
> >> > > of the GPIOF_* flags. The docs were fixed with commit 94fc73094abe47
> >> > > ("gpio: correct docs about return value of gpiod_get_direction"). Now,
> >> > > fix this user (until a better, system-wide solution is in place).
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
> >> > > Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the Reviewed-by Simon. I have applied it to the original mail.
> >>
> >> Do you know why you mail wasn't sent attached to the original thread?
> >> For some reason I received this mail on it's own i.e. not in reply
> >> to the original.
> >
> > No, not off hand. Perhaps I responded to the email in some unusual way
> > but by now I don't recall. In any case I'll try to be more careful
> > in future.
>
> I see Lee is using gmail for sending, so I assume also for receiving.
Well I'm using their servers, but my set-up is IMAP/Mutt.
> While I did receive Simon's reply in-thread, lately I had issues with gmail
> not always doing so, and sometimes failing to do deduplication when receiving
> email through multiple paths (mailing lists and/or directly).
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog