From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
<nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: introduce complex pin description
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:42:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150617124253.GC12295@odux.rfo.atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <557EF6D9.6050503@wwwdotorg.org>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:01:29AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >Using a string to describe a pin in the device tree can be not enough.
> >Some controllers may need extra information to fully describe a pin. It
> >concerns mainly controllers which have a per pin muxing approach which
> >don't fit well the notions of groups and functions.
> >Instead of using a pin name, a 32 bit value is used. The 16 least
> >significant bits are used for the pin number. Other 16 bits can be used to
> >store extra parameters.
>
> The driver for the pin controller is supposed to provide this information in
> a table. The whole point of having a driver, rather than a table/list of raw
> register values in the DT, is so the driver can provide this information at
> a semantic level. This information is fixed per SoC and so make sense to put
> into a driver, while the board-specific configuration varies wildly, and
> hence makes sense to put into DT.
>
>
I didn't think the controversery part would be about having this
information in a driver or in the device tree. I think there are pros
and cons for both cases.
We already have this description in our dt file with the previous at91
pin controller and I think it is a good thing to not have to update the
driver for each new SoC using the same pio controller. Tables could become
huge, embedding several one into a 'single zImage' is something I am not
confortable with. I know that some people could tell me that doing that
may increase the boot time.
We should debate about this patch later. If there is no acceptance for
the previous one, I have to clarify if I need it.
Regards
Ludovic
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linus.walleij@linaro.org, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: introduce complex pin description
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:42:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150617124253.GC12295@odux.rfo.atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <557EF6D9.6050503@wwwdotorg.org>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:01:29AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >Using a string to describe a pin in the device tree can be not enough.
> >Some controllers may need extra information to fully describe a pin. It
> >concerns mainly controllers which have a per pin muxing approach which
> >don't fit well the notions of groups and functions.
> >Instead of using a pin name, a 32 bit value is used. The 16 least
> >significant bits are used for the pin number. Other 16 bits can be used to
> >store extra parameters.
>
> The driver for the pin controller is supposed to provide this information in
> a table. The whole point of having a driver, rather than a table/list of raw
> register values in the DT, is so the driver can provide this information at
> a semantic level. This information is fixed per SoC and so make sense to put
> into a driver, while the board-specific configuration varies wildly, and
> hence makes sense to put into DT.
>
>
I didn't think the controversery part would be about having this
information in a driver or in the device tree. I think there are pros
and cons for both cases.
We already have this description in our dt file with the previous at91
pin controller and I think it is a good thing to not have to update the
driver for each new SoC using the same pio controller. Tables could become
huge, embedding several one into a 'single zImage' is something I am not
confortable with. I know that some people could tell me that doing that
may increase the boot time.
We should debate about this patch later. If there is no acceptance for
the previous one, I have to clarify if I need it.
Regards
Ludovic
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ludovic.desroches@atmel.com (Ludovic Desroches)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: introduce complex pin description
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:42:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150617124253.GC12295@odux.rfo.atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <557EF6D9.6050503@wwwdotorg.org>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:01:29AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >Using a string to describe a pin in the device tree can be not enough.
> >Some controllers may need extra information to fully describe a pin. It
> >concerns mainly controllers which have a per pin muxing approach which
> >don't fit well the notions of groups and functions.
> >Instead of using a pin name, a 32 bit value is used. The 16 least
> >significant bits are used for the pin number. Other 16 bits can be used to
> >store extra parameters.
>
> The driver for the pin controller is supposed to provide this information in
> a table. The whole point of having a driver, rather than a table/list of raw
> register values in the DT, is so the driver can provide this information at
> a semantic level. This information is fixed per SoC and so make sense to put
> into a driver, while the board-specific configuration varies wildly, and
> hence makes sense to put into DT.
>
>
I didn't think the controversery part would be about having this
information in a driver or in the device tree. I think there are pros
and cons for both cases.
We already have this description in our dt file with the previous at91
pin controller and I think it is a good thing to not have to update the
driver for each new SoC using the same pio controller. Tables could become
huge, embedding several one into a 'single zImage' is something I am not
confortable with. I know that some people could tell me that doing that
may increase the boot time.
We should debate about this patch later. If there is no acceptance for
the previous one, I have to clarify if I need it.
Regards
Ludovic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-17 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-10 15:04 [RESEND PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior " Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-15 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-17 12:38 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:38 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:38 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 15:55 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-17 15:55 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-18 12:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-18 12:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-18 12:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-14 5:57 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-14 5:57 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 7:46 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 7:46 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 7:46 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:29 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:29 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:29 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-27 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-27 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-27 12:12 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-27 12:12 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-30 9:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
2015-06-30 9:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
2015-06-30 9:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
2015-07-13 12:07 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-13 12:07 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-13 12:07 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-14 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-14 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-13 12:13 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-13 12:13 ` Linus Walleij
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: introduce complex pin description Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-15 16:01 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 16:01 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-15 16:01 ` Stephen Warren
2015-06-17 12:42 ` Ludovic Desroches [this message]
2015-06-17 12:42 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-17 12:42 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-14 6:13 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-14 6:13 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 8:45 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:45 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 8:45 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 10:05 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 10:05 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-07-15 13:52 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 13:52 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-07-15 13:52 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PROTO] pinctrl: rough draft for a future controller Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` [RESEND PROTO] ARM: at91/dt: proto dt Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
2015-06-10 15:04 ` Ludovic Desroches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150617124253.GC12295@odux.rfo.atmel.com \
--to=ludovic.desroches@atmel.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.