linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4 v4] drivers: create a pin control subsystem

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]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdahBjE5cyz5i44BNPi-q=+v+HM1hmgCWszuOFNq6xedSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:40:03 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Linaro Dev <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
	ext Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 v4] drivers: create a pin control subsystem

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com> wrote:

> However, we'd then need a extra table defining what each locality meant:
>
> function locality list_of_pins_in_function_at_locality
> -------- -------- ------------------------------------
> i2c0     0        0, 1
> i2c0     1        2, 3
> (hard-coded into pinmux driver implementation)

I *think* this is what I have implemented in the v5 patch set,
have a look.

> It seems slightly more complex to me to have these two separate tables,
> rather than just iterating over n entries in a single mapping table.

I can deal with it....

> Still, I suppose this an implementation detail. I guess I also need to
> think a little more about how both those models would work with Tegra,
> where special functions are selected at a granularity of pin groups,
> yet GPIO is selected at a granularity of a single pin. Perhaps that
> final table I wrote above (mapping locality to pin list) might also help
> represent Tegra's pin-group- rather than pin-level muxing capabilities...

I have made the assumption that we want to handle groups
of pins, so a certain function in a certain position represents what
the device want to request.

Well, let's look at the code...

Thanks,
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/