Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-6024-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:30:13 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
	Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	brcm80211@lists.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
	Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpiolib: Fix a mess with the GPIO_* flags
Message-ID: <ZhVC5Qa472_xQs3A@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240408231727.396452-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20240408231727.396452-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Mf73fFHo83gNvDXGy9BosB1MNz_=8kt56hLA12bPBb8CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZhU5uDJk_M_TtKH2@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Meh6K2zxpVPHvsDcr5vMMeagK7FGhnUPz3bb2rQQCPHJA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Meh6K2zxpVPHvsDcr5vMMeagK7FGhnUPz3bb2rQQCPHJA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 02:55:20PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 2:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:42:37AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:17 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The GPIO_* flag definitions are *almost* duplicated in two files
> > > > (with unmatches OPEN_SOURCE / OPEN_DRAIN). Moreover, some code relies
> > > > on one set of definitions while the rest is on the other. Clean up
> > > > this mess by providing only one source of the definitions to all.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: b424808115cb ("brcm80211: brcmsmac: Move LEDs to GPIO descriptors")
> > > > Fixes: 5923ea6c2ce6 ("gpio: pass lookup and descriptor flags to request_own")
> > > > Fixes: fed7026adc7c ("gpiolib: Make use of enum gpio_lookup_flags consistent")
> > > > Fixes: 4c0facddb7d8 ("gpio: core: Decouple open drain/source flag with active low/high")
> > > > Fixes: 69d301fdd196 ("gpio: add DT bindings for existing consumer flags")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c                     |  5 ++---
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c                        |  8 +++-----
> > > >  .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c         |  2 +-
> > > >  include/linux/gpio/driver.h                   |  3 +--
> > > >  include/linux/gpio/machine.h                  | 20 +++++--------------
> > > >  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I don't think ./dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h is the right source of these
> > > defines for everyone - including non-OF systems. I would prefer the
> > > ones in include/linux/gpio/machine.h be the upstream source but then
> > > headers in include/dt-bindings/ cannot include them so my second-best
> > > suggestion is to rename the ones in include/linux/gpio/machine.h and
> > > treewide too. In general values from ./dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h should
> > > only be used in DTS sources and gpiolib-of code.
> >
> > Then, please fix that your way. It's quite annoying issue.
> 
> This is not difficult in itself

I'm not sure, what about enum gpio_lookup_flags? Shall we resurrect it?
I see that you have better vision anyway. Consider my patch as a problem
report (and as bonus you have already list of Fixes tags :-).

> but it's a tree-wide change so we will
> probably have to send it to Torvalds at the end of the merge window in
> a separate pull-request.

WFM!

> I don't really have time now, I'll be travelling for 5 weeks in a row.
> I'll see closer to the merge window. Or next release cycle.

But can you prioritize this? It's a carefully planted minefield with already
a bug and confusion here.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko