On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:18:35PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> However, then the correlation between these pretend pins (i.e. really
>> the groups) and GPIOs won't work, because each "pin" is really 4 pins,
>> and hence 4 GPIOs, and
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:18:35PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 09:30 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> >> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Z
On 06/08/2013 02:31 AM, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 8 June 2013 03:18, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/06/2013 09:30 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013
On 8 June 2013 03:18, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 09:30 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>>> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 3
On 06/06/2013 09:30 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
>
On 7 June 2013 19:32, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:00:57AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> On 6 June 2013 23:30, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> >> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert
>> >> wrote:
>> >
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:36:16PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>
> > Ease of use is also the reason why I added the gpio-base property to the
> > original driver: Finding out the global GPIO number to use in
> > /sys/class/gpio for a g
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> Ease of use is also the reason why I added the gpio-base property to the
> original driver: Finding out the global GPIO number to use in
> /sys/class/gpio for a given GPIO of a given bank seems to be a recurring
> headache for our custom
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:00:57AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 6 June 2013 23:30, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> >> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Z
On 6 June 2013 23:30, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> >> On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert
>> >> wrote:
>> >
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> >> On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert
> >> wrote:
> >> > OK, here's a simplified example of what we would li
On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> > OK, here's a simplified example of what we would like to do (this seems
>> > pretty common so I suppose there is a way I haven't
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > OK, here's a simplified example of what we would like to do (this seems
> > pretty common so I suppose there is a way I haven't understood). Our
> > situation is slightly more compl
On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> OK, here's a simplified example of what we would like to do (this seems
> pretty common so I suppose there is a way I haven't understood). Our
> situation is slightly more complex but for the purpose of discussion
> let's assume a chip with 8 pins w
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:49:20PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 24 May 2013 19:50, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > Hello Haojian,
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:43:27PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> >> On 22 May 2013 22:28, Christian Ruppert
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:21:05PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>
> > I haven't understood how to associate GPIOs to
> > other functions, however: Our hardware pin controller makes GPIO pins
> > available depending on the configuration
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> I haven't understood how to associate GPIOs to
> other functions, however: Our hardware pin controller makes GPIO pins
> available depending on the configuration of the non-GPIO interfaces.
> This means that in many configurations, GPIO
On 24 May 2013 19:50, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hello Haojian,
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:43:27PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> On 22 May 2013 22:28, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM, St
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> It's not even pinctrl-simple-centric it is completely generic.
> >> The code is in drivers/gpio/gp
Hello Haojian,
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:43:27PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 22:28, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Stephen Warren
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 05/10/2013 02:25 A
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> It's not even pinctrl-simple-centric it is completely generic.
>> The code is in drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c.
>>
>> It was written by Shiraz Hashin and Haojian Zhuang.
>> At
On 22 May 2013 22:28, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Stephen Warren
> > wrote:
> > > On 05/10/2013 02:25 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> >
> > >> (*1) TB100 GPIO ranges are defined as a phandle to th
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 05/10/2013 02:25 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>
> >> (*1) TB100 GPIO ranges are defined as a phandle to the I/O function
> >> which provides all pins of a given GPIO
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:03:24AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> Look at for example
> >> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-abx500.c:
> >>
> >> static u8 abx500_get_mode(st
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 02:25 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> (*1) TB100 GPIO ranges are defined as a phandle to the I/O function
>> which provides all pins of a given GPIO port. This function is not
>> necessarily requested from pinctrl an
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Look at for example
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-abx500.c:
>>
>> static u8 abx500_get_mode(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, struct gpio_chip
>> *chip,
>>
On 05/10/2013 02:25 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 02:01:53PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 05/08/2013 10:41 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> ...
>>> What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO
>>> frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, mo
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>
> >> > What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO
> >> > frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, more a request for comment
> >> > to ill
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
>> > What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO
>> > frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, more a request for comment
>> > to illustrate what I mean. If you agree, I will clean it up and submit a
>> > pro
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 02:01:53PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 10:41 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> ...
> > What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO
> > frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, more a request for comment
> > to illustrate what I mea
On 05/08/2013 10:41 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
...
> What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO
> frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, more a request for comment
> to illustrate what I mean. If you agree, I will clean it up and submit a
> proper patch after disc
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:03:27PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 04/29/2013 10:17 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So if this is what you want to achieve, just use the same number
> >>> as in your datasheet in the pin number -> p
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 10:17 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>>
>>> So if this is what you want to achieve, just use the same number
>>> as in your datasheet in the pin number -> problem solved.
>>
>> The problem is that we must support several products
On 04/18/2013 03:03 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Dear Stephen and Linus,
>
> I am responding to this message because it touches the core issue I was
> wondering about when integrating pinctrl with GPIO. I think all
> unrelated comments in your other messages are valid and will be
> addressed in
On 04/29/2013 10:17 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hello Linus,
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:47:16AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Christian Ruppert
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We would like to avoid the use of Linux pin numbers in the device tree.
>>> Customers are used
Hello Linus,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:47:16AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>
> > We would like to avoid the use of Linux pin numbers in the device tree.
> > Customers are used to physical pin numbers and exposing the logical
> > Lin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> We would like to avoid the use of Linux pin numbers in the device tree.
> Customers are used to physical pin numbers and exposing the logical
> Linux-internal numbering scheme through the device tree would generate
> quite some confusio
Dear Stephen and Linus,
I am responding to this message because it touches the core issue I was
wondering about when integrating pinctrl with GPIO. I think all
unrelated comments in your other messages are valid and will be
addressed in the next iteration of both drivers.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at
On 04/10/2013 09:45 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> The pinmux driver of the Abilis Systems TB10x platform based on ARC700 CPUs.
> Used to control the pinmux and is a prerequisite for the GPIO driver.
Linus already did a review of this, but I have a few extra comments:
> diff --git a/Documentation
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> The pinmux driver of the Abilis Systems TB10x platform based on ARC700 CPUs.
> Used to control the pinmux and is a prerequisite for the GPIO driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Ruppert
> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Hascoet
Please include
40 matches
Mail list logo
