[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140521225226.GE14520@atomide.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:52:26 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: FanWu <fwu@...vell.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Chao Xie <cxie4@...vell.com>, Yilu Mao <ylmao@...vell.com>,
Ning Jiang <njiang1@...vell.com>,
Xiaofan Tian <tianxf@...vell.com>,
Fangsuo Wu <fswu@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: add params in disable_setting for different
usage
* FanWu <fwu@...vell.com> [140520 23:23]:
> To remove the HW disable function in pinmux_disable_setting is no effect for
> our SoC platform. I am just not sure whether it has effect for other
> platform just as I described before.
> If there is no vendor using the HW disabling operation, I also agree to
> remove this. :)
>
> Could you please give your suggestion about this topic ?
I agree with Stephen that we should remove the disable as at least
for the SoCs that I've dealt with there is no disable setting. The
closest I can think of is the safe mode that some omaps have, but
that too is just one mode. And disabling input logic can be done
separately from the mux mode typically.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists