Messages in this thread | | | From | Laurent Pinchart <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] pinctrl: generic: Add DT bindings | Date | Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:52:59 +0200 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Sunday 16 June 2013 01:51:32 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 22:16:13 Heiko Stübner wrote: > >> Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 21:56:05 schrieb Linus Walleij: > >> > >> Disable would the be either > >> > >> bias-disable; > >> > >> or > >> > >> bias-pull-up = <0>; > >> > >> A driver should probably handle both, as both are valid pinconf options > >> or this. > > > > I feel a bit uneasy about that. Do we really need to support two different > > ways to achieve the same result ? > > In this specific case I think yes, but not on all options. > > As dicussed earlier this was designed for systems where > you could set the pull-up resistance, like > > bias-pull-up = <600000>; > > would give 600kOhm pull up. > > In most existing systems that is silly, as they can't specify it, so they > should be able to do just: > > bias-pull-up; > > as that is all they can do. If we have to cut one way, we should cut the > former until such a system appears.
I'm fine with bias-pull-up = <1>; vs bias-pull-up;. What bothers me a bit is bias-pull-up = <0>; vs bias-disable;.
-- Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
-- 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/
| |