lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pinmux bindings proposal V2
* Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> [120130 16:49]:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> [120129 17:13]:
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:05:45AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> ...
> > > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to just clk_get esdhc_clk during init, then
> > > > do clk_set_rate on it to toggle the rates?
> > > >
> > > It's not an init-time switch but run-time one. That said,
> > > sdhci_ops.set_clock will be called during run-time.
> >
> > Right, basically you don't want to do clk_get or pinmux_get during
> > runtime, you do that once one during init. Then do clk_set_rate or
> > whaterver during runtime.
> >
> > Is there anything stopping from implementing sdhci_ops.set_rate
> > using clock framework and clk_set_rate in this case BTW?
> >
> We are doing this exactly for clk, and trying to figure out how to
> handle pinctrl here. I do not see how we can do pinmux_get at
> init-time and pinmux_set_whatever at run-time. The pinmux API does
> not work that way.

Hmm OK I see what you mean. Maybe we should have something like
pinmux_get/set_function to change the mux without having to do
pinmux_put and pinmux_get during runtime? As long as the locking is
per pin that should be safe to do.

> > > > > > So I'd rather stay out of random named states for
> > > > > > the pins coming from device tree; If we still need them, they should
> > > > > > be common bindings rather than things like "xyz_clock_hack".
> > > > > >
> > > > > The binding defines the syntax, and I do not see the necessity to
> > > > > force the particular state name, which is really pinctrl client
> > > > > device specific.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have some other custom pin state example other than the
> > > > clock rate change example above?
> > > >
> > > I have another case PM related. To aggressively save power, the pins
> > > configured for particular function during active mode need to be
> > > muxed on gpio mode and output 0 in low-power mode.
> >
> > OK, but basically only a small subset of pins of the total pins?
> >
> Actually, all pins used by the block.

That's still a fraction of the total pins on the SoC that need dynamic
remuxing, right?

Regards,

Tony


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-31 03:31    [W:0.055 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site