From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Courbot Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] gpio: add GPIO hogging mechanism Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:31:42 +0900 Message-ID: References: <1413922198-29373-1-git-send-email-bparrot@ti.com> <3D00ADB3-00B3-40A8-8263-444BCADDAC33@gmail.com> <20141029163445.GB29965@ti.com> <2BA5D07E-B5EF-49E1-BFD2-310A6C5F3FE4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2BA5D07E-B5EF-49E1-BFD2-310A6C5F3FE4@gmail.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Benoit Parrot , Linus Walleij , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Benoit, > >> On Oct 29, 2014, at 18:34 , Benoit Parrot wrote: >> >> Pantelis, >> >> Thanks for the feedback. >> >> Pantelis Antoniou wrote on Wed [2014-O= ct-29 10:53:44 +0200]: >>> Hi Benoit, >>> >>>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 23:09 , Benoit Parrot wrote: >>>> >>>> Based on Boris Brezillion work this is a reworked patch >>>> of his initial GPIO hogging mechanism. >>>> This patch provides a way to initally configure specific GPIO >>>> when the gpio controller is probe. >>>> >>>> The actual DT scanning to collect the GPIO specific data is perfor= med >>>> as part of the gpiochip_add(). >>>> >>>> The purpose of this is to allows specific GPIOs to be configured >>>> without any driver specific code. >>>> This particularly usueful because board design are getting >>>> increassingly complex and given SoC pins can now have upward >>>> of 10 mux values a lot of connections are now dependent on >>>> external IO muxes to switch various modes and combination. >>>> >>>> Specific drivers should not necessarily need to be aware of >>>> what accounts to a specific board implementation. This board level >>>> "description" should be best kept as part of the dts file. >>>> >>> >>> This look like it=E2=80=99s going to the right direction. I have a = few general >>> comments at first. >>> >>> 1) It relies on dubious DT binding of having sub-nodes of the >>> gpio device implicitly defining hogs. >> >> I think in this instance the nodes are explicitly defining hogs. >> Please clarify. What would you like to see here? >>> > > Any subnodes are implicitly taken as hog definitions. This is not rig= ht because > gpio controllers might have subnodes that they use for another purpos= e. > >>> 2) There is no way for having hogs inserted dynamically as far as I= can tell, and >>> no way to remove a hog either. >> >> The original patch was allowing that but, Linus's review comment sug= gested this feature be >> part of the gpio-controller's gpiochip_add() hook only. >> > > If it=E2=80=99s not possible to remove a hog, then it=E2=80=99s no go= od for my use case in which > the gpios get exported and then removed. Why would you want to remove a GPIO hog at runtime, and what is the point of having it set in the DT in that case? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html