From: b.brezillon@overkiz.com (boris brezillon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: add new generic pinconf config for deglitch filter
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:16:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521C4451.1060908@overkiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521C2347.4080702@wwwdotorg.org>
On 27/08/2013 05:55, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/26/2013 11:01 AM, boris brezillon wrote:
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> On 26/08/2013 18:50, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2013 03:35 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>>> Add a new parameter to support deglitch filter configuration.
>>>> A deglitch filter works like a debounce filter but with a smaller
>>>> delay (nanoseconds).
>>> Why not use the existing debounce property, just with a small delay
>>> specified. It seems like that's exactly what the property is for?
>> That's one of the question I asked in my cover letter :-)
>>
>> Indeed the at91 deglitch filter delay is not configurable and is statically
>> assigned to half a master clk cycle (if master clk = 133MHz -> 8 ns).
>> The debounce property argument is currently expressed in usecs.
>>
>> This will result in always selecting the debounce filter (which is also
>> available on at91 SoCs) over the deglitch filter.
>>
>> Could we add a flag in the deglitch argument to specify the delay unit
>> (nsecs or usecs) ?
> If the value is hard-coded in HW, why not use non-zero (or 1) to enable
> and zero to disable?
Indeed at91 pins support both deglitch and debounce filter and I have to
choose
between the two given the argument value (in usec).
Here's what I can do:
if (arg >= 1/2 * slowclock) /* debounce case */
/* choose debounce filter and configure the delay
according to the given argument value */
else /* deglitch case */
/* choose deglitch filter */
Slow clock is running at 32KHz which gives a 30 usec clock cycle.
>
> (this kind of thing is why I'm not convinced that generic pinconf works
> so well... What if we need psecs in the future?)
Should I keep the at91 native pinconf binding and add the missing flags
to this binding
(OUTPUT configuration flags) ?
This was another question I asked in my cover letter: wether or not the
generic pinconf
binding should be used.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: boris brezillon <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@gmail.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Masanari Iida <standby24x7@gmail.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: add new generic pinconf config for deglitch filter
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:16:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521C4451.1060908@overkiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521C2347.4080702@wwwdotorg.org>
On 27/08/2013 05:55, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/26/2013 11:01 AM, boris brezillon wrote:
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> On 26/08/2013 18:50, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2013 03:35 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>>> Add a new parameter to support deglitch filter configuration.
>>>> A deglitch filter works like a debounce filter but with a smaller
>>>> delay (nanoseconds).
>>> Why not use the existing debounce property, just with a small delay
>>> specified. It seems like that's exactly what the property is for?
>> That's one of the question I asked in my cover letter :-)
>>
>> Indeed the at91 deglitch filter delay is not configurable and is statically
>> assigned to half a master clk cycle (if master clk = 133MHz -> 8 ns).
>> The debounce property argument is currently expressed in usecs.
>>
>> This will result in always selecting the debounce filter (which is also
>> available on at91 SoCs) over the deglitch filter.
>>
>> Could we add a flag in the deglitch argument to specify the delay unit
>> (nsecs or usecs) ?
> If the value is hard-coded in HW, why not use non-zero (or 1) to enable
> and zero to disable?
Indeed at91 pins support both deglitch and debounce filter and I have to
choose
between the two given the argument value (in usec).
Here's what I can do:
if (arg >= 1/2 * slowclock) /* debounce case */
/* choose debounce filter and configure the delay
according to the given argument value */
else /* deglitch case */
/* choose deglitch filter */
Slow clock is running at 32KHz which gives a 30 usec clock cycle.
>
> (this kind of thing is why I'm not convinced that generic pinconf works
> so well... What if we need psecs in the future?)
Should I keep the at91 native pinconf binding and add the missing flags
to this binding
(OUTPUT configuration flags) ?
This was another question I asked in my cover letter: wether or not the
generic pinconf
binding should be used.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: boris brezillon <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Masanari Iida <standby24x7@gmail.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@gmail.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: add new generic pinconf config for deglitch filter
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:16:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521C4451.1060908@overkiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521C2347.4080702@wwwdotorg.org>
On 27/08/2013 05:55, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/26/2013 11:01 AM, boris brezillon wrote:
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> On 26/08/2013 18:50, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2013 03:35 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>>> Add a new parameter to support deglitch filter configuration.
>>>> A deglitch filter works like a debounce filter but with a smaller
>>>> delay (nanoseconds).
>>> Why not use the existing debounce property, just with a small delay
>>> specified. It seems like that's exactly what the property is for?
>> That's one of the question I asked in my cover letter :-)
>>
>> Indeed the at91 deglitch filter delay is not configurable and is statically
>> assigned to half a master clk cycle (if master clk = 133MHz -> 8 ns).
>> The debounce property argument is currently expressed in usecs.
>>
>> This will result in always selecting the debounce filter (which is also
>> available on at91 SoCs) over the deglitch filter.
>>
>> Could we add a flag in the deglitch argument to specify the delay unit
>> (nsecs or usecs) ?
> If the value is hard-coded in HW, why not use non-zero (or 1) to enable
> and zero to disable?
Indeed at91 pins support both deglitch and debounce filter and I have to
choose
between the two given the argument value (in usec).
Here's what I can do:
if (arg >= 1/2 * slowclock) /* debounce case */
/* choose debounce filter and configure the delay
according to the given argument value */
else /* deglitch case */
/* choose deglitch filter */
Slow clock is running at 32KHz which gives a 30 usec clock cycle.
>
> (this kind of thing is why I'm not convinced that generic pinconf works
> so well... What if we need psecs in the future?)
Should I keep the at91 native pinconf binding and add the missing flags
to this binding
(OUTPUT configuration flags) ?
This was another question I asked in my cover letter: wether or not the
generic pinconf
binding should be used.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-27 6:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-24 21:32 [RFC PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: at91: add support for generic pinconf Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-24 21:32 ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-24 21:35 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: add new generic pinconf config for deglitch filter Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-24 21:35 ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-26 16:50 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-26 16:50 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-26 17:01 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-26 17:01 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 3:55 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 3:55 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 6:16 ` boris brezillon [this message]
2013-08-27 6:16 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 6:16 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 7:42 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-08-27 7:42 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-08-27 7:42 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-08-27 8:28 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 8:28 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 21:33 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 21:33 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-28 13:22 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-28 13:22 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-28 13:13 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-28 13:13 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-24 21:37 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] pinctrl: at91: add support for generic pinconf Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-24 21:37 ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-26 16:53 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-26 16:53 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-26 17:17 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-26 17:17 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 3:57 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 3:57 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 6:40 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 6:40 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 21:35 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 21:35 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-26 17:53 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-08-26 17:53 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-08-26 18:45 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-26 18:45 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-26 19:18 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-08-26 19:18 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-08-26 19:18 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-08-26 19:48 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-26 19:48 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 7:51 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-08-27 7:51 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-08-27 7:51 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-08-27 3:54 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 3:54 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 6:04 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 6:04 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-27 21:30 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 21:30 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-24 21:40 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] ARM: at91/dt: move sama5 to " Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-24 21:40 ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-28 12:28 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-28 12:28 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-28 12:52 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-28 12:52 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-24 21:43 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: at91: add support for " boris brezillon
2013-08-24 21:43 ` boris brezillon
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=521C4451.1060908@overkiz.com \
--to=b.brezillon@overkiz.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.