Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231121-dev-iio-backend-v1-0-6a3d542eba35@analog.com>
 <20231121-dev-iio-backend-v1-4-6a3d542eba35@analog.com> <CAMknhBGCqnzCp6vQ+59Z-SybScvbtU7aWdAD6KnP1e6=q60gVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d534c3323c32d4ed2aedae19a9f101be90ef0cc7.camel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d534c3323c32d4ed2aedae19a9f101be90ef0cc7.camel@gmail.com>
From:   David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 11:01:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMknhBGjm2ja9HOenOWi9O5Ao8qUg=gT=_Vz8CyxQ=pfNX2EJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] iio: adc: ad9467: fix reset gpio handling
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TnVubyBTw6E=?= <noname.nuno@gmail.com>
Cc:     nuno.sa@analog.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        Olivier MOYSAN <olivier.moysan@foss.st.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:47=E2=80=AFAM Nuno S=C3=A1 <noname.nuno@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 15:41 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 4:17=E2=80=AFAM Nuno Sa via B4 Relay
> > <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com>
> > >
> > > The reset gpio was being requested with GPIOD_OUT_LOW which means, no=
t
> > > asserted. Then it was being asserted but never de-asserted which mean=
s
> > > the devices was left in reset. Fix it by de-asserting the gpio.
> >
> > It could be helpful to update the devicetree bindings to state the
> > expected active-high or active-low setting for this gpio so it is
> > clear which state means asserted.
> >
>
> You could state that the chip is active low but I don't see that change t=
hat
> important for now. Not sure if this is clear and maybe that's why your co=
mment.
> GPIOD_OUT_HIGH has nothing to do with active high or low. It just means, =
"get me the
> pin in the asserted state".
>

I would assume that this bug happened in the first place because
someone forgot GPIOD_OUT_LOW in the devicetree when they were
developing the driver. So this is why I suggested that updating the
devicetree binding docs so that future users are less likely to make
the same mistake. Currently, the bindings don't even have reset-gpios
in the examples.