Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:47:00 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: msm: Add support for MSM TLMM pinmux | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
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
| |