From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754175AbaCNLEu (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:04:50 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:29125 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751618AbaCNLEt (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:04:49 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,654,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="499791275" Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:11:51 +0200 From: Mika Westerberg To: Linus Walleij Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alexandre Courbot , Lan Tianyu , Lv Zheng , Alan Cox , Mathias Nyman , ACPI Devel Maling List , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] gpio / ACPI: Add support for ACPI GPIO operation regions Message-ID: <20140314111151.GH5018@intel.com> References: <1394456094-21671-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <1394456094-21671-6-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20140313151816.GR5018@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:53:30AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Mika Westerberg > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:32:01PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> > + case ACPI_IO_RESTRICT_OUTPUT: > >> > + gpiod_direction_output(desc, pull); > >> > >> Can you explain why the fact that the line is pulled down affects the > >> default output value like this? I don't get it. > > > > That's the thing - ACPI doesn't tell us what is the initial value of the > > pin. There is no such field in GpioIo() resource. > > > > So I'm assuming here that if it says that the pin is pulled up, the default > > value will be high. > > OK! So exactly that statement is what I want to see as a comment > in this switch case. Sure. I'll add that comment to the next version of this patch.