Re: [PATCH 2/2] extcon: int3496: Explicitly set the id pin to direction-input

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 10-03-17 23:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> With the new more strict ACPI gpio code the dsdt's IoRestriction
>> flags are honored on gpiod_get, but in some dsdt's it is wrong,
>> so explicitly call gpiod_direction_input on the id gpio.
>>
>> This fixes the following errors when the int3496 code is used
>> together with the new more strict ACPI gpio code:
>>
>> [ 2382.484415] gpio gpiochip1: (INT33FF:01): gpiochip_lock_as_irq: tried to flag a GPIO set as output for IRQ
>> [ 2382.484425] gpio gpiochip1: (INT33FF:01): unable to lock HW IRQ 3 for IRQ
>> [ 2382.484429] genirq: Failed to request resources for INT3496:00 (irq 174) on irqchip chv-gpio
>> [ 2382.484518] intel-int3496 INT3496:00: can't request IRQ for USB ID GPIO: -22
>> [ 2382.500359] intel-int3496: probe of INT3496:00 failed with error -22
>
> Because my patches are not yet upstreamed I think this would be postponed.
> I can take it into my branch and send together with the rest. What do you think?

It does not hurt to get it upstream already and merging patch-sets generally
is a lot easier if they do not span multiple subsystems. So I think it would
be better to get it upstream already as preparation for your series.

>
>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-intel-int3496.c
>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-intel-int3496.c
>> @@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ static int int3496_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>                 dev_err(dev, "can't request USB ID GPIO: %d\n", ret);
>>                 return ret;
>>         }
>
> It would be nice to check the direction here and complain to the user
> loudly the firmware has a bug.

Ok, I will send a v2 doing this.


>
>> +       gpiod_direction_input(data->gpio_usb_id);
>

Regards,

Hans