lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] pinctrl: core: configure pinmux from pins debug file
Hi,

> Il 02/06/2021 07:03 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [210528 09:08]:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:33 PM Dario Binacchi <dariobin@libero.it> wrote:
> > > > Il 27/05/2021 21:57 Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > > Unfortunately you continue to cling to the broken interface, while I see no
> > > > comments from you about asked to consider pin groups and pin group functions.
> > >
> > > Could you kindly explain to me, with some practical examples, what kind of interface
> > > would you implement ?
> >
> > I am not fully understanding this discussion.
> >
> > I get the feeling that this is caused by the early architectural decisions with
> > pinctrl-single to put all configuration of pin groups and functions per pin into
> > the device tree.
> >
> > Tony specifically wanted this because what he gets from TI are some raw
> > ASIC data dumps from the designers, that he could make a script to process
> > into device tree rather than into .h files, and get this out of the kernel.
> > (As I remember it, Tony correct me if I'm wrong.)
>
> Yeah the idea was to avoid stuffing even more SoC specific data into the
> kernel and rather use devicetree data only for the booted SoC.
>
> > This makes it hard to align some concepts of the pin control subsystem such
> > as functions and groups because pinctrl-single assume a 1-to-1 mapping
> > between one pin and one group, which in turn has a 1-to-many mapping
> > to functions.
> >
> > Is the patch trying to debugfs around this somehow?
> >
> > If this hack is only needed for pinctrl-single.c then it should be placed in
> > that driver, so Tony can review it and maintain it as applicable in that
> > driver's context only, not in the pinctrl core as it appears the general
> > applicability for other drivers is not there.
> >
> > Would this really be useful for other drivers than pinctrl-single.c?
>
> I'd rather go with a generic interface. I think it should work if we only
> allow enabling and disabling of unclaimed pingroups from sysfs. And then
> we can also allow creating new pingroups for unclaimed pins if needed.
>

Could you kindly explain to me, with some practical examples, what kind of interface
would you implement ? Or something similar to start from that is already in the Kernel?

Thanks and regards,
Dario

> Regards,
>
> Tony

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-11 10:30    [W:0.087 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site