On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Hanumant Singh <hanum...@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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
