lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 4/4] da850-evm: add baseboard UI expander buttons, switches and LEDs
Hi Ben,

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 19:45:46, Ben Gardiner wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Nori, Sekhar <nsekhar@ti.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation. I should have probably asked
> > earlier, why do we need to prevent sysfs access of
> > deep sleep enable and sw reset pins? We don't seem to be
> > using them in the kernel either.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> I was assuming that those pins were not exported as gpio pins on
> purpose; I was taking the prudent approach to prevent haphazard
> toggling of sw_rst and deep_sleep_en from userspace. sw_rst because it
> could initiate a reset of the cpu when toggled and deep_sleep_en
> because it can override the behaviour of davinci_pm_enter().
>
> I'm not sure how they would be used by existing kernel classes either.
> The sw_rst pin could be used for reset but since it is on the other
> end of an i2c bus and there is an existing implementation of reset
> using the on chip watchdog I don't think it would be benficial to
> switch. Deep_sleep_en could override the behaviour in
> davinci_pm_enter() -- _maybe_ (I don't really know) it could be used
> as a hardware-assisted suspend-blocker? But I totally guessing here.

My preference would be to leave these pins as is
(don't call a gpio_request() on them) till someone
comes up with a use case for them. From what you
described, sysfs access cannot happen "accidently"
so someone accessing these pins from sysfs surely
knows what he is doing.

Thanks,
Sekhar



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-23 13:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans