Skip to contentSkip to conversation

spi: Assume GPIO CS active high in ACPI case

PATCH In review Andy Shevchenko 4 participants 4 messages May 11, 2021 – May 12, 2021 SPI

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/1 spi: Assume GPIO CS active high in ACPI case

Currently GPIO CS handling, when descriptors are in use, doesn't take into consideration that in ACPI case the default polarity is Active High and can't be altered. Instead we have to use the per-chip definition provided by SPISerialBus() resource.

Fixes 766c6b63aa04 ("spi: fix client driver breakages when using GPIO descriptors")
Cc Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
Cc Jay Fang <[email protected]>
Cc Sven Van Asbroeck <[email protected]>

---
v2: refactor to avoid ternary (Mark, Sven), dropped comment changes (Mark)

 drivers/spi/spi.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
drivers/spi/spi.c +18 -4
index cd40421b8f55..36ee33514b40 100644
@@ -820,15 +820,29 @@ static void spi_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool enable, bool force)
 
 	if (spi->cs_gpiod || gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio)) {
 		if (!(spi->mode & SPI_NO_CS)) {
-			if (spi->cs_gpiod)
-				/* polarity handled by gpiolib */
-				gpiod_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpiod, activate);
-			else
+			if (spi->cs_gpiod) {
+				/*
+				 * Historically ACPI has no means of the GPIO polarity and
+				 * thus the SPISerialBus() resource defines it on the per-chip
+				 * basis. In order to avoid a chain of negations, the GPIO
+				 * polarity is considered being Active High. Even for the cases
+				 * when _DSD() is involved (in the updated versions of ACPI)
+				 * the GPIO CS polarity must be defined Active High to avoid
+				 * ambiguity. That's why we use enable, that takes SPI_CS_HIGH
+				 * into account.
+				 */
+				if (has_acpi_companion(&spi->dev))
+					gpiod_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpiod, !enable);
+				else
+					/* Polarity handled by GPIO library */
+					gpiod_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpiod, activate);
+			} else {
 				/*
 				 * invert the enable line, as active low is
 				 * default for SPI.
 				 */
 				gpio_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpio, !enable);
+			}
 		}
 		/* Some SPI masters need both GPIO CS & slave_select */
 		if ((spi->controller->flags & SPI_MASTER_GPIO_SS) &&
Signature · 1 line
2.30.2
#1 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Andy Shevchenko

Currently GPIO CS handling, when descriptors are in use, doesn't take into consideration that in ACPI case the default polarity is Active High and can't be altered. Instead we have to use the per-chip definition provided by SPISerialBus() resource.

I don't have access to the hardware to test this right now, but the patch is small enough to determine that the OF case will stay the same.
LGTM.

#2 lore raw
In reply to Andy Shevchenko
Quoted 31 lines · Andy Shevchenko

Currently GPIO CS handling, when descriptors are in use, doesn't take into consideration that in ACPI case the default polarity is Active High and can't be altered. Instead we have to use the per-chip definition provided by SPISerialBus() resource.

Fixes 766c6b63aa04 ("spi: fix client driver breakages when using GPIO descriptors")
Cc Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
Cc Jay Fang <[email protected]>
Cc Sven Van Asbroeck <[email protected]>

---
v2: refactor to avoid ternary (Mark, Sven), dropped comment changes (Mark)

  drivers/spi/spi.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
drivers/spi/spi.c +3 -4
index cd40421b8f55..36ee33514b40 100644
@@ -820,15 +820,29 @@ static void spi_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool enable, bool force)
 
  	if (spi->cs_gpiod || gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio)) {
  		if (!(spi->mode & SPI_NO_CS)) {
-			if (spi->cs_gpiod)
-				/* polarity handled by gpiolib */
-				gpiod_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpiod, activate);
-			else
+			if (spi->cs_gpiod) {
+				/*
+				 * Historically ACPI has no means of the GPIO polarity and

drivers/spi/spi.c static void spi_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool enable, bool force) · line 835

Quoted 10 lines
drivers/spi/spi.c +10 -0
+				 * thus the SPISerialBus() resource defines it on the per-chip
+				 * basis. In order to avoid a chain of negations, the GPIO
+				 * polarity is considered being Active High. Even for the cases
+				 * when _DSD() is involved (in the updated versions of ACPI)
+				 * the GPIO CS polarity must be defined Active High to avoid
+				 * ambiguity. That's why we use enable, that takes SPI_CS_HIGH
+				 * into account.
+				 */
+				if (has_acpi_companion(&spi->dev))
+					gpiod_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpiod, !enable);

it worked and code changed minimally,  before ACPI & OF keeps no same rules,  this patch is ok!

Quoted 13 lines
drivers/spi/spi.c +5 -0
+				else
+					/* Polarity handled by GPIO library */
+					gpiod_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpiod, activate);
+			} else {
  				/*
  				 * invert the enable line, as active low is
  				 * default for SPI.
  				 */
  				gpio_set_value_cansleep(spi->cs_gpio, !enable);
+			}
  		}
  		/* Some SPI masters need both GPIO CS & slave_select */
  		if ((spi->controller->flags & SPI_MASTER_GPIO_SS) &&
Signature · 2 lines
Best Regards!
Xin Hao
maintainer
#3 lore raw
In reply to Andy Shevchenko
Quoted 4 lines · Andy Shevchenko

Currently GPIO CS handling, when descriptors are in use, doesn't take into consideration that in ACPI case the default polarity is Active High and can't be altered. Instead we have to use the per-chip definition provided by SPISerialBus() resource.

Applied to

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: Assume GPIO CS active high in ACPI case

      commit: 6b69546912a57ff8c31061f98e56383cc0beffd3

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark