From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [RFC] pinctrl: generic: Add DT bindings Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:52:59 +0200 Message-ID: <1422045.RvRkWGR9K7@avalon> References: <1370988237-30593-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <1795038.rqcr6GWLdP@avalon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , James Hogan , "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On Sunday 16 June 2013 01:51:32 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 22:16:13 Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > >> Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 21:56:05 schrieb Linus Walleij: > >>=20 > >> Disable would the be either > >>=20 > >> bias-disable; > >>=20 > >> or > >>=20 > >> bias-pull-up =3D <0>; > >>=20 > >> A driver should probably handle both, as both are valid pinconf op= tions > >> or this. > >=20 > > I feel a bit uneasy about that. Do we really need to support two di= fferent > > ways to achieve the same result ? >=20 > In this specific case I think yes, but not on all options. >=20 > As dicussed earlier this was designed for systems where > you could set the pull-up resistance, like >=20 > bias-pull-up =3D <600000>; >=20 > would give 600kOhm pull up. >=20 > In most existing systems that is silly, as they can't specify it, so = they > should be able to do just: >=20 > bias-pull-up; >=20 > as that is all they can do. If we have to cut one way, we should cut = the > former until such a system appears. I'm fine with bias-pull-up =3D <1>; vs bias-pull-up;. What bothers me a= bit is=20 bias-pull-up =3D <0>; vs bias-disable;. --=20 Regards, Laurent Pinchart