Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: add a generic control interface

[Shawn Guo]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 04:04:29PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > @@ -113,6 +204,10 @@ extern struct pinctrl_dev *pinctrl_register(struct pinctrl_desc *pctldesc,
> ...
> > +extern int pin_config(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, int pin,
> > +		      enum pin_config_param param, unsigned long data);
> > +extern int pin_config_group(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, const char *pin_group,
> > +			    enum pin_config_param param, unsigned long data);
> 
> Hmmm. Do we really want to expose these as public APIs? I suppose it
> will allow us to start configuring all these parameters ASAP, but all
> previous discussion has been aimed at having the pinctrl core set up an
> initial set of values at boot-time using a board-supplied table (so no
> external API), and then we were still talking about how to manipulate
> the values at run-time. Do we really want to encode all this information
> into drivers calling these APIs?
> 
+1

We should not require device driver to call these APIs directly.  There
are so many pinctrl subsystem internal details left to its users.

The Stephen's proposal [1] about adding a new param into pinmux_enable()
to specify pin configuration is much preferred to me.

Regards,
Shawn

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/137341

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/