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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1616760183.git.sander@svanheule.net> <31e5a5aeb833c43c07daafcf939864497ff1c349.1616760183.git.sander@svanheule.net>
 <CAHp75Vdi06dLxJNCo4f1CA=cS1MuPwG0nEAnVqt8BRrz9bnOtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f5059092c1d4f3a23683a2eebfa37cb739881a8a.camel@svanheule.net>
 <CAHp75VfTkfBqHc1S1aUm0Pr-=L_FNDUqkoH_x+KJgkXdZ33VAA@mail.gmail.com> <537a2becc81360f314a4293f7bb619ed2a377cb6.camel@svanheule.net>
In-Reply-To: <537a2becc81360f314a4293f7bb619ed2a377cb6.camel@svanheule.net>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:14:36 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VftETTkOGx6AUvQi5s-ngo73WBdHnqsX84pCM6GAaHMyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] gpio: Add Realtek Otto GPIO support
To:     Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
Cc:     devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bert Vermeulen <bert@biot.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:28 PM Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 13:26 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:11 PM Sander Vanheule <
> > sander@svanheule.net> wrote:

...

> > AFAICS all, except one have this flag, I suggest you to do other way
> > around, i.e. check compatible string in the code. Or do something more
> > clever. What happens if you have this flag enabled for the fallback
> > node?
> >
> > If two people ask the same, it might be a smoking gun.
> >
>
> Testing for the fallback wouldn't work, since of_device_is_compatible()
> would always match. Setting the (inverse) flag only on the fallback
> would indeed reduce the clutter.
>
> If the port order is reversed w.r.t. to the current implementation,
> enabling a GPIO+IRQ would enable the same pin on a different port. I
> don't think the result would be catastrophical, but it would result in
> unexpected behaviour. When A0 and C0 are then enabled, A0 interrupts
> would actually come from C0, and vice versa.
>
>    Intended port | A | B | C | D
> -----------------+---+---+---+---
> Actual GPIO port | D | C | B | A
>  Actual IRQ port | B | A | D | C
>
> If only the actual GPIO ports change, at least you can still use a
> modified GPIO line number and polling. The user could just leave out
> the optional irq-controller from the devicetree, but I would rather
> have it enforced in some way.

OK! Thanks for clarification.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko