[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Pinmux bindings proposal V2
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:43:23AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Shawn Guo <> [120129 17:27]:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:16:53AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > ...
> > > I guess the analog we should follow here is clk_get and clk_set_rate,
> > > except we would have pinconf_set_state with predefined states.
> > >
> > It seems working for cases that we only change pinconf but never pinmux
> > for different configuration states. But how would that work for cases
> > that require mux change for different configuration states?
> I don't see why we should not allow changing the mux state with pinconf
> too, after all it's the mux/pin that's locked, not the functionality of
> the pin.
My point is I do not see how we can use the current pinmux APIs design
to change mux in the way how clk_get and clk_set_rate work. Or you
have a pinmux APIs reconstruction on your mind?


> An example of this would be remuxing a shared UART line between rx and
> tx. Those kind of cases could be defined as PMX_DIRECTION_INPUT and
> PMX_DIRECTION_OUTPUT so driver could call Linux generic functions for
> those if implemented.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-31 01:57    [W:0.055 / U:19.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site