lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Add support for muxing individual pins
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Charles Keepax
> <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote:
>
> > This series add support for muxing individual pins within
> > pin mux, rather than just whole groups. Mainly, I had two
> > motivations here, one to avoid the need to add loads of groups
> > containing individual pins and hardware that actually has some
> > internal concept of groups of pins, and disambiguating that from
> > individual pin muxing. I have marked it as RFC to just get
> > peoples opinions at this stage, although it should be pretty well
> > tested. Sorry about the amount of files touched in patch 2 it
> > would be possible to drop it from the chain although it leaves
> > the field rather inaccurately named.
> >
> > Also I have left all the existing code paths parsing all mux
> > options as groups from DT, and added a new helper to unlock the
> > pin based functionality this should ease the transition across.
>
> There is currently a driver in the pin control subsystem that
> handles individual pins and that is pinctrl-single.c.
>
> The driver is deployed for single pins muxed by a single
> register, and if this infrastructure is to be deployed it must
> be applied also in pinctrl-single. We cannot have several ways
> of doing the same thing, that way lies madness.
>

Apologies for the oversight I will have a look at that and try to
update the series as appropriate. I am travelling for the next
couple of weeks so there might be a small lag in getting an
updated version out.

> So you need Tony Lindgren's review and direction on this
> patch series.
>

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

> I see the problem you are setting out to solve. I too have ran
> into the situation (on systems such as Qualcomm's) where
> single-pin groups are more rule than exception. It would be
> good to alleviate this and handle it in the core somehow.

Thanks,
Charles

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-10 10:46    [W:0.131 / U:28.696 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site