Re: [PATCH 0/4] USB: ftdio_sio: GPIO validity fixes

[Johan Hovold]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:20:38AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:48 PM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 03:34:23PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
> > > If they claim that their lines are available, and then refuse to
> > > let the user play with it, that's just a bug willing to be fixed.
> >
> > My point was that this is how *all* gpio drivers work, and that muxing
> > is somewhat orthogonal to the gpio controller implementation.
> 
> This is true. It's because it is orthogonal that the separate subsystem
> for pin control including pin muxing exists.
> 
> Should I be really overly picky, the drivers that can mux lines like
> this should be implementing the pin control mux driver side as
> well just to make Linux aware of this. But if the muxing cannot
> be changed by the kernel (albeit with special tools) then it would
> be pretty overengineered for this case. Things would be much
> easier if this wasn't some flashing configuration but more of a
> runtime thing (which is kind of the implicit assumption in pin
> control land).

We'd still have problem of how to configure these hot-pluggable devices
at runtime, so it's not necessarily easier.

If I remember correctly the xr_serial driver under review is doing
something like muxing at runtime, but by simply having whichever
interface (tty or gpio) that claims the resource first implicitly set
the mux configuration. I have to revisit that.

> We don't really have many drivers that are "muxable by
> (intrusive) flashing" as opposed to "muxable by setting some
> bits" so in that way these FTDI drivers and siblings are special.

Yeah, but the gpio-reserved-range (valid-mask) feature which Marc used
comes close here.

Johan