[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbNSNzT8tiYDXk1dc447xGqf1bV+O93hgEQdT+GcQtddA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:54:01 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] pinctrl: msm: Mux out gpio function with gpio_request()
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:56 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> I could do with some more clarity from Linus in the "Drivers needing
> both pin control and GPIOs" section of
> Documentation/driver-api/pinctl.rst but I read that section as stating
> that the GPIO driver needs to mux the pin as a GPIO by requesting the
> pinctrl backend to do so, unless the hardware overrides the muxed
> function selection when the GPIO is used, without involving pinctrl
> software.
Yeah that text is especially terse :/
What it says (or what I meant to say) is that there is a choice
between letting the pin control and GPIO functionality on the
same pin be handled orthogonally or implementing these
gpio_*() callbacks into the pin control backend, but in either case
the two APIs must be used in sequence:
pin control setting comes first, second the GPIO subsystem can
request the GPIO line.
I'll see if I can clarify.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists