linux-kernel - RFC: is SIM connector switch a case for pinmux ?

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

Message-ID: <a1bb9419-c499-dbd8-8e15-e7655b484d6e@metux.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:17:47 +0200
From:   "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RFC: is SIM connector switch a case for pinmux ?

Hello folks,

I'm currently thinking about what would be the best fit for the
APU board's sim-switch functionality.

The boards have two sim sockets, where only one can be active at
a time (the lines are routed to mpcie slot), which can be controlled
via a gpio line.

Extconn doesn't seem to fit, as it IMHO only does the exact opposite
direction - detect what external connector is currently active (eg.
on slots that support multiple conntor types and switch automatically)

Pinmux might be an option, as this HW is some pin multiplexer, but in
this case it's not related SoC pins and doesn't control which internal
devices are connected to the outside.

I've already thought about introducing a new class for the pretty much
the opposite of extconn (maybe call it extswitch ?). There also might
be an semantic overlap w/ other subsystems, eg. kvm's connector
switching. Not sure whether yet another subsystem is the optimal
solution here.

What's your oppinion on that ?

--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287