Re: [Pinctrl] A suggestion to avoid duplicated enabling operation on a pin's setting

[Stephen Warren]

On 05/12/2014 11:53 PM, FanWu wrote:
...
> About the glitch I mentioned before, I want to make myself clear.
> If there is a case like the following one:
> pinctrl-0 = <&a_grp_settingA>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&a_grp_settingB>;
> "a_grp_settingA" and "a_grp_settingB" are used to described the same
> Pin's different mux and function configuration
> In my understanding,
> When there is a need to switch Pin group state, the current code will
> disable "a_grp_settingA" first ahead of enabling "a_grp_settingB", right ?

Yes.

> Do you mean the case I mentioned will not be a glitch ?

I guess you're talking about that:

>> In the original code, the Pin setting will be changed to the
>> disabled/safe state when Pin state is switched if the old setting is not
>> existed in new state rather than directly switched to the new Pin
>> setting. Also a possible glitch?

Yes, in this case, there is no glitch. However, there is certainly a
change in HW configuration. A glitch is a temporary short-term
accidental change in output value or configuration. In the case quoted
immediately above, the change is permanent - at least until some other
state is activated later. Hence, there is no glitch. However, there
certainly is a change in HW configuration, and that could be just as
problematic, depending on the HW and exact pin configuration.
--
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/