linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/gpio.txt: Explain expected pinctrl interaction

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: <CACRpkdbMFN3=XTSg1oE310eTHecrs6XaMz+DCNYJzwOg8JEEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:41:31 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/gpio.txt: Explain expected pinctrl interaction

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:27:42PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> Update gpio.txt based on recent discussions regarding interaction with the
>> pinctrl subsystem.
>>
>> Previously, gpio_request() was described as explicitly not performing any
>> required mux setup operations etc.
>>
>> Now, gpio_request() is explicitly as explicitly performing any required mux
>> setup operations where possible. In the case it isn't, platform code is
>> required to have set up any required muxing or other configuration prior to
>> gpio_request() being called, in order to maintain the same semantics.
>
> So what if you need to have the pin as a GPIO, manipulate it as a GPIO,
> and then hand it off to a special function, and then take it back as
> a GPIO before you shut the special function down ?

I remember this case very well and we designed for it, so it should be handled
by pin control and GPIO thusly:

Example: use pins 1,2 as I2C, then convert them to GPIO for a while
then back again:

// This call looks up a map containing pins 1,2 and reserve them
p = pinctrl_get(dev, "i2c");
if (IS_ERR(p))
  ...
pinctrl_enable(p);
pinctrl_disable(p);
// This will free up the pins again
pinctrl_put(p);
// So now we can do this...
// NB: the GPIO driver calls pinctr_request_gpio() to check
// that it can take these pins
gpio_request(1, "gpio1"):
gpio_request(2, "gpio2");
// This will trigger a reset or something
gpio_direction_output(1, 1);
gpio_direction_output(2, 1);
// Release pins again
gpio_free(1);
gpio_free(2);
// Take them back for this function
p = pinctrl_get(dev, "i2c");

It's a bit kludgy but works and makes sure the pins are only used
for one thing at a time.

BTW: Russell, which specific platform and driver was it that had this
usecase? I'd like to have a look at the code to educate myself.

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/