[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Latest gpio gumph
    David Brownell <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday 28 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
    > > >
    > > > * gpio_direction_output() should disable the pullups just like
    > > > at32_select_gpio(... AT32_GPIOF_OUTPUT) does, for consistency
    > > > between those alternative initialization paths.
    > >
    > > But then we need to keep track of whether pullups used to be enabled so
    > > that we can re-enable it in gpio_direction_input(), don't we?
    > "Need"? I'd figure that changing direction like that would be
    > uncommon without something determining signal level (like an
    > external driver or pullup) ... and if nothing did so, then it'd
    > be important to use the AVR32-private API with pullup control.

    If you enable the internal pullup during port configuration, it should
    stay that way, I think. But I think at32_select_gpio() should be fixed
    so that when the user specifies AT32_GPIOF_OUTPUT | AT32_GPIOF_PULLUP,
    the pullup will be turned on.

    > > I can't see the harm of keeping the pullup enabled while the port is
    > > configured as output. For consistency, I'd rather honor the pullup flag
    > > in at32_select_gpio() regardless of AT32_GPIOF_OUTPUT.
    > I guess I don't like the idea of facilitating the constant current
    > waste that implies if output is being driven low. Even if it's not
    > a huge current waste! (These pullups being a lot weaker than I'd
    > have expected, at typically 190 kOhm.) No big deal here I guess.

    I don't think we're talking about a lot of pins that need to switch
    direction on the fly, and the pullup is very weak as you say. And a
    floating input might waste a lot more power than the pullup ever will.

    > For an open drain output it's probably less of an issue, unless
    > there are too many pullups.

    The board designer should know this and set the AT32_GPIOF_PULLUP flag
    as appropriate.

    > > > * On the odd chance some code uses a pin as a GPIO IRQ without
    > > > calling gpio_request() or gpio_direction_input(), the debug
    > > > dump should still show its pin status.
    > >
    > > Hmm. I guess that makes sense, though I would be lying if I said I care
    > > all that much. I think gpiolib is going pretty far to accommodate buggy
    > > drivers that don't call gpio_request() as it is.
    > For diagnostic/debug code, I'd say it's reasonably useful to cope
    > with buglets like that.
    > I actually observed that happening. Setup code was passing the irq
    > to the driver, and everything worked fine because the reset default
    > was fine. I happened to notice that /sys/kernel/debug/gpio output
    > didn't match up to /proc/interrupts (bug) ... but it would have been
    > much faster to see the bug if the listing for that pin had a "?" label
    > showing that it hadn't been requested.

    Yes, but it will only catch that particular case, not missing
    gpio_request() calls in general.

    I'm not really opposed to the second change; I would have applied it if
    it came separately. But I think the first change is wrong.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-28 11:27    [W:0.025 / U:7.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site