[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYi=ekV8okmz68HZ8Ydv9hTrHnHvQh0HYMs5SfURd9mdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:51:32 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] pinctrl: generic: Add DT bindings
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 15 June 2013 22:16:13 Heiko Stübner wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 21:56:05 schrieb Linus Walleij:
>> Disable would the be either
>> bias-disable;
>> or
>> bias-pull-up = <0>;
>>
>> A driver should probably handle both, as both are valid pinconf options or
>> this.
>
> I feel a bit uneasy about that. Do we really need to support two different
> ways to achieve the same result ?
In this specific case I think yes, but not on all options.
As dicussed earlier this was designed for systems where
you could set the pull-up resistance, like
bias-pull-up = <600000>;
would give 600kOhm pull up.
In most existing systems that is silly, as they can't specify
it, so they should be able to do just:
bias-pull-up;
as that is all they can do. If we have to cut one way, we
should cut the former until such a system appears.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists