[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <558AE478.2080802@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:40:16 +0530
From: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@...aro.org>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, lee.jones@...aro.org,
sameo@...ux.intel.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Use of pinctrl-single for external device over I2C
On Wednesday 24 June 2015 07:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@...aro.org> [150624 05:06]:
>> On Tuesday 23 June 2015 04:25 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * REVISIT: Reads and writes could eventually use regmap or something
>>> * generic. But at least on omaps, some mux registers are performance
>>> * critical as they may need to be remuxed every time before and after
>>> * idle. Adding tests for register access width for every read and
>>> * write like regmap is doing is not desired, and caching the registers
>>> * does not help in this case.
>>> */
>>>
>>>
>>> Should be not have flag for this and use regmap_ variants? If we
>>> implement flag based approach then same driver can be reused for pinmux
>>> configuration of external device.
>
> Nothing stopping you from adding regmap support to it. It just needs
> to be made optional as the users so far don't need it.
>
Yeah, absolutely.
Thinking more on this,
I do not like this, as this is not HW feature, so DT may not be right
approach.
So I will dig more from either runtime or Compile time option to use
regmap_ Vs raw read/writes.
Thanks,
Vaibhav
--
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