linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] ARM: dtsi: axp81x: set pinmux for GPIO0/1 when used as LDOs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGb2v67c_67iS4MdR6kcB_To-wzUoTudpKgb6ZGPOHgsB5Jh=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:22:28 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...e-electrons.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] ARM: dtsi: axp81x: set pinmux for GPIO0/1 when
 used as LDOs

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>
>> What about not enforcing any muxing state when we want to mux to the
>> "ldo" function? We just leave it to whatever value it is, that way we
>> keep it under the regulator framework's control, and we don't disrupt
>> anything when the pin is requested.
>
> In a way since setting the bits one way means "LDO on" and another
> setting means "LDO off" those bits should be handled by the
> regulator framework when used as a regulator, not pin control.
>
> So I would say yes.

I agree. That would be the best solution.

ChenYu