[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120301030931.GA27020@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:09:32 +0800
From: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@...escale.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"B29396@...escale.com" <B29396@...escale.com>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"dongas86@...il.com" <dongas86@...il.com>,
"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
"thomas.abraham@...aro.org" <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] pinctrl: API changes to support multiple states
per device
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:22:42AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Dong Aisheng wrote at Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:47 PM:
.....
> > > + if (p->state) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * The set of groups with a mux configuration in the old state
> > > + * may not be identical to the set of groups with a mux setting
> > > + * in the new state. While this might be unusual, it's entirely
> > > + * possible for the "user"-supplied mapping table to be written
> > > + * that way. For each group that was configured in the old state
> > > + * but not in the new state, this code puts that group into a
> > > + * safe/disabled state.
> >
> > It means the old state function of some groups may not have been disabled before
> > enabling the new function mode.
> > May it be a little error-prone?
> > Maybe we can not depend on user to disable a function before enable another for
> > a group when doing pinmux_enable_setting considering they may be different
> > registers.
>
> The idea here is that there are two cases:
>
> 1) (hopefully the typical case)
>
> Group X HAS a mux function set in OLD state
> Group X HAS a mux function set in NEW state
>
> In this case, we simply call pinmux_enable_setting(new state).
>
> We do this so that we can transition directly from the old state to the
> new state without going through any artificial intermediate states, to
> make the mux switching as glitchless as possible.
>
> If the HW has some restriction where it has to operate like:
>
> Old state -> idle -> new state
>
> Rather than:
>
> Old state -> new state
>
> Then I think that should be taken care of within the individual driver;
> given most mux selection is just a register field that feeds into a simple
> signal mux in HW, such a requirement seems pretty unlikely to me, but you
> never know.
>
I thought before that the mux function for GROUP X in OLD state may be set
in register A while mux function in NEW state may be set in register B.
So before setting new state function, user should disable old state function
(clear register A)first. (Maybe i thought too far)
But now i realize that you're correct, this can be handled in individual driver
for different HW requirement.
> 2)
>
> Group X HAS a mux function set in OLD state
> Group X DOES NOT have a mux function set in NEW state
>
> In this case, we call pinmux_disable_setting(old state) to ensure that
> the pin is put into some idle state that can't interfere with any other
> pin.
>
Thanks for the detailed clarification.
Regards
Dong Aisheng
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists