From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [v6] pinctrl: qcom: qdf2xxx: add support for new ACPI HID QCOM8002 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:06:56 -0600 Message-ID: <38463c81-eeab-85dc-d197-6081ce1d1130@codeaurora.org> References: <1513189818-7384-4-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <20171213230155.GS7997@codeaurora.org> <6ca3b4a6-90b9-0481-beb8-29a95c86f07c@codeaurora.org> <615426d4-7c46-9671-87ef-790fb5733385@codeaurora.org> <20171219023935.GA17456@codeaurora.org> <735d4316-9b18-2903-aabd-46ead1db5233@codeaurora.org> <20171220022626.GH7997@codeaurora.org> <20171220081556.GA30524@codeaurora.org> <20171221003947.GJ7997@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171221003947.GJ7997@codeaurora.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Andy Shevchenko , Mika Westerberg , thierry.reding@gmail.com, david.brown@linaro.org, andy.gross@linaro.org, Bjorn Andersson , Varadarajan Narayanan , Archit Taneja List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 12/20/17 6:39 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I don't see how it hurts to treat it generically. Presumably > that's the way it will be done on ACPI platforms going forward? > No need to tie it to some ACPI HID. But it is tied to a HID. The "num-gpios" and "gpios" properties belong to a specific HID. Someone could create a new HID with different properties, and then what? That's why I want all the ACPI stuff in the client driver. At this point I don't really care any more about what the patches look like, but I really do think that putting the ACPI code in pinctrl-msm is a bad idea. We're debating adding support for multiple TLMMs, and we may create a new HID for that, so that we can define all pins on all TLMMs in one device. We would need to create a new HID and new DSDs to go with it. > I'm trying to resolve everything at once: gpios, pinctrl pins, > and irqs exposed by the TLMM hardware. The value is that we solve > it all, once, now. Keep in mind that I am now in vacation, and so I won't be able to submit any more patches for a while. > The DT binding can also be resolved at the > same time, so when we need to express this in DT it's already > done. Ok. > Otherwise, something can request irqs from the irqdomain > even if the irq can't be enabled, or it can try to mux the pin to > some other function, even if the function selection can't be > configured. Is it possible to request an IRQ for a pin if the pin itself can't be requested? > Boiling everything down into the irq valid mask should cover all > these cases, and not require us to strip const from all the data > in the non-ACPI pinctrl drivers to replace the value in the npins > field at runtime. Ok. -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.