From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:16:07 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v8 12/12] document: devicetree: bind pinconf with pin single In-Reply-To: References: <1359825953-15663-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> <1359825953-15663-13-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> <20130205040721.GE25185@atomide.com> <20130205233045.GQ25185@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20130206171607.GZ25185@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Haojian Zhuang [130206 07:11]: > On 6 February 2013 07:30, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Haojian Zhuang [130205 05:55]: > >> > >> Maybe it didn't cover your case. It seems that there's only one bit > >> for bias in your case. > >> You can control MMC BIAS enable or disable. And there's neither pullup > >> nor pulldown. > >> Is it right? > > > > Yes for this register there are no pulls. But I there are others that > > have pull bits. > > > >> So I will need both config BIAS_ENABLE & config BIAS_DISABLE. > >> Driver switches between BIAS_ENABLE & BIAS_DISABLE. > > > > I'd like to avoid mapping both enable and disable for everything > > which seems bloated.. > > > > pinctrl-coh901 driver already uses PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE without argument. > > I think that it's better to use both BIAS_ENABLE & BIAS_DISABLE. Otherwise, > I need to update pinctrl-coh901 driver with updating the interface. > The work is a little > large. Well how about just let's keep the existing PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE and PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_ENABLE for compability, but let's still standardize on PIN_CONFIG_XXX_ENABLE for all the new ones to avoid bloat? > Maybe we can use another name, PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_AUTOPULL. Then we can > distinguish it from PULL_UP & PULL_DOWN without any confusion. What's your > opinion? Sounds OK to me if you need that. Regards, Tony