Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:55:15 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-mockup: Fix usage of new GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION
Message-ID: <20191210145515.GB3509@sol>
References: <20191210021525.13455-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=Md4PmbcGAKxP1LG08bREtWCtsXbt=ZgL50PrizF4F4pxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Md4PmbcGAKxP1LG08bREtWCtsXbt=ZgL50PrizF4F4pxg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:11:12PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> wt., 10 gru 2019 o 03:15 Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > Restore the external behavior of gpio-mockup to what it was prior to the
> > change to using GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Fix a regression introduced in v5.5-rc1.
> >
> > The change to GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION reversed the polarity of the
> > dir field within gpio-mockup.c, but overlooked inverting the value on
> > initialization and when returned by gpio_mockup_get_direction.
> > The latter is a bug.
> > The former is a problem for tests which assume initial conditions,
> > specifically the mockup used to initialize chips with all lines as inputs.
> > That superficially appeared to be the case after the previous patch due
> > to the bug in gpio_mockup_get_direction.
> >
> >  drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c
> > index 56d647a30e3e..c4fdc192ea4e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c
> > @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int gpio_mockup_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
> >         int direction;
> >
> >         mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > -       direction = !chip->lines[offset].dir;
> > +       direction = chip->lines[offset].dir;
> >         mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
> >
> >         return direction;
> > @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ static int gpio_mockup_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >         struct gpio_chip *gc;
> >         struct device *dev;
> >         const char *name;
> > -       int rv, base;
> > +       int rv, base, i;
> >         u16 ngpio;
> >
> >         dev = &pdev->dev;
> > @@ -447,6 +447,9 @@ static int gpio_mockup_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >         if (!chip->lines)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > +       for (i = 0; i < gc->ngpio; i++)
> > +               chip->lines[i].dir = GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN;
> > +
> >         if (device_property_read_bool(dev, "named-gpio-lines")) {
> >                 rv = gpio_mockup_name_lines(dev, chip);
> >                 if (rv)
> > --
> > 2.24.0
> >
> 
> Hi Kent,
> 
> I was applying and testing your libgpiod series and noticed that the
> gpio-tools tests fail after applying patches 16 & 17 (with linux
> v5.5-rc1). Is this fix related to this?
> 

I don't think so.  I've only been able to trip this problem with a
couple of corner cases in my Go uapi test suite.
I have been unable to reproduce it with the tools as it requires
multiple requests with the same chip fd, including an as-is, to trip.

And running the libgpiod tests against v5.5-rc1 works for me.
Can you provide more details as to the errors you are seeing?

Btw, I was writing tests for your LINEINFO_WATCH patch v2, which I was
applying to v5.5-rc1, when I ran across this.  That works ok if I
__packed the changed struct.
And I can confirm that patch v2 doesn't isolate watches on different
chip fds.

Kent.