From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: new type: pinctrl-single,bits Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:20:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20120905182023.GG1303@atomide.com> References: <1346835718-21325-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:22701 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754083Ab2IESU1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:20:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Peter Ujfalusi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Linus Walleij [120905 05:11]: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > > When configuring pinmux with pinctrl-single there could be a case when one > > register is used to configure mux for more than one pin. > > In this case the use of pinctrl-single,pins is a bit problematic since we can > > only update the whole register (restricted by the mask). > > In such a situations the pinctrl-single,bits could provide a safe way to handle > > the mux. > > > > pinctrl-single,bits takes three parameters: > > The sub mask is used to mask part of the register to make sure we do not change > > bits outside of the scope of this pin. > > > > The first patch in this series is to fix the previous pinctrl-since,pins > > implementation because it was not using the mask on the value which could result > > changed bits outside of the mask. > > This looks sane to me, but I'd like Tony to ACK before I apply it. Cool, this should allow handling cases where some pinctrl devices can have extra aux registers for signal strength etc for some of the pins. Will take a look. Tony