Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:10:23 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: palmas: do not abort pin configuration for BIAS_DEFAULT |
| |
On 10/02/2013 04:40 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >> [Laxman] >>> Hmm.. When I added the PIN_DEFAULT, I just though that do not update >>> anything in the register and implemented like that. >>> There is nothing "default" option in HW. >> >> The description of that pinconfig option is: >> >>> 7970cb77 (Heiko Stübner 2013-06-06 16:44:25 +0200 43) * @PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_PIN_DEFAULT: the pin will be pulled up or down based >>> 70637a6d (Heiko Stübner 2013-06-25 14:55:42 +0200 44) * on embedded knowledge of the controller hardware, like current mux >>> 70637a6d (Heiko Stübner 2013-06-25 14:55:42 +0200 45) * function. The pull direction and possibly strength too will normally >>> 70637a6d (Heiko Stübner 2013-06-25 14:55:42 +0200 46) * be decided completely inside the hardware block and not be readable >>> 70637a6d (Heiko Stübner 2013-06-25 14:55:42 +0200 47) * from the kernel side. >>> 5ca3353b (Linus Walleij 2013-06-16 12:43:06 +0200 48) * If the argument is != 0 pull up/down is enabled, if it is 0, the >>> 5ca3353b (Linus Walleij 2013-06-16 12:43:06 +0200 49) * configuration is ignored. The proper way to disable it is to use >>> 5ca3353b (Linus Walleij 2013-06-16 12:43:06 +0200 50) * @PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE. >> >> If the HW doesn't support any concept of a default pull, I think the >> driver shouldn't support that option; it should return an error if asked >> to program it. > > Yes that's how I remember it and how we specified it. > Correct Heiko? > >> Presumably given this, LinusW shouldn't have actually applied this >> patch, since presumably it prevents any other driver from accepting >> PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE even in cases where it is appropriate? > > There are many patches I shouldn't have applied ... > > Anyway I'm not quite following, this patch affected the Palmas > driver only I think so how can it prevent any other drivers from doing > the right thing?
Sorry, for some reason I thought this patch was touching core code rather than the specific driver:-(
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |