lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] pinctrl: msm: Add support for MSM TLMM pinmux
    From
    On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Hanumant Singh <hanumant@codeaurora.org> wrote:

    > Ok i can switch to using pin groups defined in per soc files.
    > But in our case we have one soc going into different types of boards.
    > (atleast 3). In each of the boards the same external devices end up using
    > different pins. For ex camera on board 1 uses different pin group
    > then the same camera on board 2. Both having the same SOC.
    > So in this case the design would be to have all possible pin groups
    > for different boards enumerated in the same soc-pinctrl.c file?

    Sorry I don't get this at all.

    What pin groups and functions that exist on a SoC is what you put into
    a SoC driver. Because this is a hardware characteristic.

    How these are combined on a board into different states is what you put
    into the device tree. (Or platform data.)

    > Also in this implementation I will have.
    > 1) pinctrl-msm.c => DT parsing and interface to framework.
    > 2) pinctrl-msm-tlmm<version>.c => Register programming and pin types
    > supported by a particular TLMM pinmux version.
    > 3) pinctrl-<soc>.c => All the pins/pin groups supported by a given SOC.

    Seems OK.

    > As I
    > mentioned we will have a bloat of these, since we have entire families of
    > SOC using a given TLMM version but with unique pin groupings.

    Bring 'em on. But is that really different groups you are talking about,
    and not just combinations of groups with functions for a certain board
    as I describe above?

    If you have many SoC subdrivers, consider creating a subdir as some
    drivers already have.

    > I don't override the default values, since resistor values are not
    > configurable. I only care about which config option is chosen to program it
    > as pull up/down or disable.

    That sounds correct.

    >> Actually the data should be more carefully handled for each
    >> config option I think.
    >>
    > Not sure I follow. Based on my use mentioned above, what do you suggest for
    > the read? Should I return default config value, which is what I am doing ?

    Here:

    + switch (id) {
    + case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE:
    + mask = TLMMV3_GP_PULL_MASK;
    + shft = TLMMV3_GP_PULL_SHFT;
    + data = TLMMV3_NO_PULL;

    data should just be zero. (Maybe TLMMV3_NO_PULL is
    zero? But anyway...)

    + if (!write) {
    + val >>= shft;
    + val &= mask;
    + data = rval_to_pull(val);

    Dito.

    Because it has no meaning in the framework.

    Yours,
    Linus Walleij


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-08-15 23:01    [W:5.209 / U:0.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site