linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] Input: omap4-keypad: Add pinctrl support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:11:57 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	balbi@...com
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar@...com>, tony@...mide.com,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Input: omap4-keypad: Add pinctrl support

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:24:10AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

>> We need some place to put the SoC integration; power domains seem like
>> the obvious place to me but YMMV.  Nothing about having this out of the
>
> except that pin muxing has nothing to do with power domain. To me that
> sounds like an abuse of the API.

It could be renamed to "power resources" or something as long as
it's related to resource handling related to the PM calls.

But I worry that it violates the Unix principle to do one thing and one
thing only.

A device power resource framework goes in the opposite direction,
trying to do a lot of unrelated things in a central place as opposed
to distributing the task.

>> drivers requires that this be done by individual subsystems in isolation
>> from each other.  Half the point here is that for the reusable IPs this
>> stuff often isn't driver specific at all, it's often more about the SoC
>> integration than it is about the driver and so you'll get a consistent
>> pattern for most IPs on the SoC.
>
> and all of that SoC-specific detail is already hidden behind power
> domains, runtime PM, pinctrl, clk API, regulator framework, etc.

I agree.

pinctrl has already done a fair job at trying to be abstract in the
states requested from the core, in <linux/pinctrl/pinctrl-state.h>.

And I accept the idea to  try to centralize more as well, maybe
as a helpful struct and some inlines for the pinctrl core. I think
this is enough, and pushing all handles into central code creates
a problem elsewhere.

(But I'm not so certain ... so I might just
change opinion one of those days depending on what
arguments will be made.)

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/