[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYcaGzSvAN2Trqwer+8GbqXyfpE=VqiYcQvCOqhDO9MMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:45:44 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: jmondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>
Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@...esas.com>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] pinctrl: generic: Add bi-directional and output-enable
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:37 PM, jmondi <jacopo@...ndi.org> wrote:
>> I did not follow too much.
>> But it seems IMX7ULP/Vybrid to be also a fan of generic
>> output-enable/input-enable
>> property.
>>
>> See:
>> Figure 5-2. GPIO PAD in Page 241
>> http://www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/reference-manuals/VFXXXRM.pdf
>>
>> It has separate register bits to control input buffer enable and
>> output buffer enable
>> and we need set it property for GPIO function.
>
> As it seems we have another user for 'output-enable' here, what if we just
> add that one to the generic bindings properties list, and we keep
> 'bi-directional' (which seems to be the most debated property we have
> added) out of generic properties?
>
> We can handle 'bi-directional' pins with static tables in our pin
> controller driver and not have it anywhere in DT.
This sounds like a viable approach.
I just want to know if "output-enable" is the right name?
"output-buffer-enable"?
> I see commit 42d5a11200d0[1] has not been reverted yet as Andy asked
> in some previous email.
I'm just overloaded. I sent that revert to Torvalds today.
> I can send another version of that patch with
> only 'output-enable' if you wish.
That's what we want.
> Once we reach consesus, I can then send v6 of our pin controller driver
> based on that.
OK sounds like a plan.
Sorry for the mess, I'm just trying to get this right :/
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists