Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm/hdmi: Use pinctrl in HDMI driver

[Ivan T. Ivanov]

On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 10:12 -0500, "StÃphane Viau" wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> > Hi Stephane,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:28 -0400, Stephane Viau wrote:
> > > Some targets (eg: msm8994) use the pinctrl framework to configure
> > > interface pins. This change adds support for initialization and
> > > pinctrl active/sleep state control for the HDMI driver.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephane Viau <sviau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > - Add devicetree binding documentation for pinctrl property  [Ivan]
> > > - Use pinctrl framework's PINCTRL_STATE_DEFAULT/SLEEP states [Ivan]
> > > 
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > >  static int hdmi_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master, void
> > > *data)
> > > @@ -365,6 +379,7 @@ static int hdmi_bind(struct device *dev, struct
> > > device *master, void *data)
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > >         struct device_node *of_node = dev->of_node;
> > >         const struct of_device_id *match;
> > > +       struct pinctrl *pinctrl;
> > > 
> > >         match = of_match_node(dt_match, of_node);
> > >         if (match && match->data) {
> > > @@ -383,6 +398,18 @@ static int hdmi_bind(struct device *dev, struct
> > > device *master, void *data)
> > >         hdmi_cfg->mux_sel_gpio  = get_gpio(dev, of_node,
> > > "qcom,hdmi-tx-mux-sel");
> > >         hdmi_cfg->mux_lpm_gpio  = get_gpio(dev, of_node,
> > > "qcom,hdmi-tx-mux-lpm");
> > > 
> > > +       /* not all targets have pinctrl, do not fail in case of error:
> > > */
> > > +       pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(dev);
> > 
> > Probably I have to be more explicit. Why not using pins binding handled in
> > driver
> > really_probe()? I have to admit that I am not familiar with DRM subsystem.
> 
> This would work, indeed, for default/sleep/idle states.
> 
> I actually had in mind that we'd need to keep track of HDMI pinctrl states
> because we may need to add a couple more in the near future in order to
> independently enable/disable certain parts of the HDMI controller (eg:
> HPD, DDC, CEC..).
> 
> Each of this HW sub-sections of the controller are driven by a different
> "pin" in the downstream driver... But since this is nowhere close to being
> upstream-ed yet, I'll go ahead with your idea of using the common pins
> binding (v3 to follow).

v3? Why we need a patch if we already have required support?

Regards,
Ivan

--
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/