Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220906204301.3736813-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
 <20220906204301.3736813-2-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20220906211628.6u4hbpn4shjcvqel@pali>
 <Yxe7CJnIT5AiUilL@google.com> <20220906214114.vj3v32dzwxz6uqik@pali>
 <YxfBKkqce/IQQLk9@google.com> <20220906220901.p2c44we7i4c35uvx@pali>
 <YxfMkzW+5W3Hm1dU@google.com> <CACRpkdZh0BF1jjPB4FSTg12_=aOpK-kMiOFD+A8p5unr1+4+Ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZh0BF1jjPB4FSTg12_=aOpK-kMiOFD+A8p5unr1+4+Ow@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:10:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdrX5Pz1d-SM2PPikEYw0zJBe6GCdr4pEfgBLMi1J9PAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: switch to using gpiod API
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=C3=A1r?= <pali@kernel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:35 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:41 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Linus, do you think we should introduce GPIOD_OUT_INACTIVE /
> > GPIOD_OUT_ACTIVE or GPIOD_OUT_DEASSERTED / GPIOD_OUT_ASSERTED and
> > deprecate existing GPIOD_OUT_LOW and GPIO_OUT_HIGH?
>
> They should rather be replaced everywhere in one go.
>
> I think it is just a half-measure unless we also add
> #define GPIOD_ASSERTED 1
> #define GPIOD_DEASSERTED 0
> to be used instead of 1/0 in gpiod_set_value().
>

We've had that discussion for libgpiod and went with
GPIOD_VALUE_ACTIVE and GPIOD_VALUE_INACTIVE but...

> It would also imply changing the signature of the function
> gpiod_set_value() to gpiod_set_state() as we are not
> really setting a value but a state.
>

... now that you've mentioned it it does seem like
GPIOD_STATE_ACTIVE/INACTIVE makes much more sense as well as naming
the relevant functions gpiod_line_request_set_line_state() etc.

> I have thought about changing this, but the problem is that I felt
> it should be accompanied with a change fixing as many users
> as possible.
>
> I think this is one of those occasions where we should merge
> the new defines, and then send Linus Torvalds a sed script
> that he can run at the end of the merge window to change all
> gpiod_set_value(...., 1) -> gpiod_set_state(...., GPIOD_ASSERTED);
> everywhere.
>
> After all users are changed, the GPIOD_ASSERTED/DEASSERTED
> defined can be turned into an enum.
>
> That would be the silver bullet against a lot of confusion IMO.
>
> We would need Bartosz' input on this.
>

We can also let Linus know that we'll do it ourselves late in the
merge window and send a separate PR on Saturday before rc1?

Bart

> Yours,
> Linus Walleij