From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: haojian.zhuang@linaro.org (Haojian Zhuang) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 23:07:50 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v8 12/12] document: devicetree: bind pinconf with pin single In-Reply-To: <20130205233045.GQ25185@atomide.com> 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: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. 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? Regards Haojian