linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: reserve pins when states are activated

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:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:07:45 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Anmar Oueja <anmar.oueja@...aro.org>,
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
	Jean Nicolas Graux <jean-nicolas.graux@...ricsson.com>,
	Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: reserve pins when states are activated

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> [121022 01:22]:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
> > [Me]
> >> Instead: let use reserve the pins when the state is activated
> >> and drop them when the state is disabled, i.e. when we move to
> >> another state. This way different devices/functions can use the
> >> same pins at different times.
> >
> > Hmm doesn't this mean that we are now doing lots of extra
> > reserving and dropping of pins? Performance is important from
> > latency point of view for cases where we need to remux pins
> > constantly runtime PM.
> 
> It is only done in case the pinmux state is switched in runtime
> suspend/resume, so it's e.g. possible to just alter the pin config.
> 
> But in general what you say is true.
> 
> We used to to the same thing by having drivers call
> pinctrl_get()/pinctrl_put() in this case instead, but that went
> away with the introduction of states, so we cannot encode
> different pin sets with say
> pinctrl_get(dev, "foo")/pinctrl_get(dev, "bar")
> anymore since there is only one pinctrl handle per device,
> but multiple states.

OK
 
> If this turns out to be a severe performance bottleneck, I
> suggest to add some additional constraint API, like
> pinctrl_set_pinmux_homegeneous_pinsets(true) that will
> at runtime select whether the pin allocation is done when
> getting the pinctrl handle instead.

Or maybe you could release + reserve the pins only if the
pins change?

Regards,

Tony
--
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/