Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:11:53 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@openphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] SPI broken for SPI based panel drivers
Message-ID: <20201201171153.GM5239@sirena.org.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel <letux-kernel@openphoenux.org>
References: <2D7916FA-678F-4236-B478-C953CADF2FFA@goldelico.com>
 <CAGngYiXgc_m2A7Wihxuhzm-u4qH-JZgxHjke653zvyT45jMU7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4AC29229-9542-4E77-B993-217E29C7E209@goldelico.com>
 <20201201121620.GB5239@sirena.org.uk>
 <A499CCB9-F2EC-4F24-AA79-5A7FA6A092A9@goldelico.com>
 <CACRpkdYf2dUF6PjYcvnsKDPoxXPWiWKKAqpik4-2AAQjRmatfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201201162035.GK5239@sirena.org.uk>
 <8D0E8CDA-96EA-4900-B5B2-0AD371EAD046@goldelico.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WuedheRyq6FDfQ9j"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8D0E8CDA-96EA-4900-B5B2-0AD371EAD046@goldelico.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--WuedheRyq6FDfQ9j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 05:41:54PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > Am 01.12.2020 um 17:20 schrieb Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:

> > I think the problem here is more to do with where we started than where
> > we're going or how we got there - things have been glued together or
> > happened to work in ways that mean I'm not sure we reasonably understand
> > the situation we started from or all the requirements it has.  As you
> > say I'm not sure anything beyond throwing the API away and starting
> > afresh would really help here, but that's not really how we tend to do
> > things for a bunch of very good reasons.

> I think the key problem is GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH 0 and GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW 1
> in device tree blobs. But that is so fundamental that we have to live with it.
> So I guess that even a new API from scratch wouldn't improve that.

Yeah, that's definitely part of it - more generally there's multiple
places trying to determine if the signal is inverted with different
interactions/expectations.  Having it in an ABI definitely contributes a
lot to causing trouble though.

--WuedheRyq6FDfQ9j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAl/GeVgACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CPMQf/SsrwU3DUXaX7CJ7+bYc0OzNzeBvjKkMchBWxHcnEyR7EKhZwHXxNhxbq
cH5SzVmeuM5I/HsQ0FGpI07ZRWo3nAUlA2QVEOjXYJ7fPFw/bMn10xi7KJzo2aNg
gWjAJtp8PfaW2J+bjoVCcRxyS5ppsBNj5AmSHr1ZDxHee4TZUZ8MvlbMvBXGkt6L
4PO0uMJ79QY3KuNzKr+GnceyW+mhcGIuW9OSJepMx+yK2m4ZmsRKy9kduN7Rg0WJ
ugMF9UY0qZHpsyXEjlgbaUJTOUBMZYhX36f6iUh3hHuTMZXrfEaoK3CEAj9jToYl
d3aLIj3j80SU6HUmqHYfdkfAqmMcsA==
=45IK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WuedheRyq6FDfQ9j--