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: <20220906204922.3789922-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
 <88VJLR.GYSEKGBPLGZC1@crapouillou.net> <Y3ernUQfdWMBtO9z@google.com>
 <Y3fF/mCUVepTfTi+@lunn.ch> <Y3fHF9b1YoVTj/jL@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y3fHF9b1YoVTj/jL@google.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:35:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb=O_dUn6hUrAS1yYZxBR1ZPADtTb9GbLBANHUxcm3sUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: davicom: dm9000: switch to using gpiod API
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 6:55 PM Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 06:50:54PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > Why is that 1 magically turned into a 0?
> > >
> > > Because gpiod uses logical states (think active/inactive), not absolute
> > > ones. Here we are deasserting the reset line.
> >
> > This is the same question/answer you had with me. Maybe it is worth
> > putting this into the commit message for other patches in your series
> > to prevent this question/answer again and again.
>
> Right... Actually I think I'll go and define that GPIO_STATE_ACTIVE/
> GPIO_STATE_INACTIVE and try to get Linus and Bart to accept it as code
> speaks louder than words ;)

What I have said about that is that it should be accompanied by some sed
or cocinelle script to change this everywhere in the kernel instead
of using 0/1 to the gpiod_set/direction etc functions. Then Torvalds
can run that toward the end of the merge window to just change this
everywhere at once and be done with it.

The reason I want it that way is that I am royally tired of changes that
begin in one tiny corner and then the change keeps confusing users
for years until it is finally fixed up 15 kernel revisions later.

Since that has created a support nightmare in the past, I am now
advocating an all-or-nothing approach with that type of change.

Yours,
Linus Walleij