Re: [PATCH RFC v2 8/8] ARM: zynq: DT: Add pinctrl information

[SÃren Brinkmann]

On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 06:36PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:57 PM, SÃren Brinkmann
> <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 09:17AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> >> Again it seems to be a sequencing problem. And device tree is
> >> not good at sequences, therefore all states should be self-contained.
> >
> > I agree, but how would I define a pin with pull-up enabled and
> > tri-state disabled - assume the pin is currently in a random state that
> > can have those things set/not set arbitrarily.
> 
> I was more thinking as everything you don't enable explicitly
> in a state is per definition disabled.
> 
> So if you are in state A and tri-state is enabled there and you
> move to state B where pull-up is enabled, then tri-state should
> be disabled, since it is not explicitly enabled.
> 
> > I can't put bias-disable in DT since it would potentially disable both
> > and the pull-up enable would have only a transient effect.
> 
> Well look at the callback from the core:
> 
>         int (*pin_config_set) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>                                unsigned pin,
>                                unsigned long *configs,
>                                unsigned num_configs);
> 
> You get all configs in an array. The driver can walk over the list and
> make informed decisions on what to do *BEFORE* poking any registers.
> 
> Avoiding transients as you describe is part of why the callback
> looks as it does. This is why every driver has its own for-loop.

Okay, I guess that is possible. I find usage of the arguments more
elegant since it is more explicit and reduces code in the driver, but I
suspect it should work.

	Thanks,
	SÃren
--
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/