From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pinctrl: single: Prepare for supporting SoC specific features Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:15:52 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20130607203936.16513.57494.stgit@localhost> <20130607205037.16513.84242.stgit@localhost> <20130608152732.GR3331@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130608152732.GR3331@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Haojian Zhuang , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Peter Ujfalusi , Linux-OMAP , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Roger Quadros List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: single: Prepare for supporting SoC specific features > > Let's replace is_pinconf with flags and add struct pcs_soc so we > can support also other features like pin wake-up events. Let's > export the probe so the SoC specific modules can pass their > SoC specific data to pinctrl-single if needed. I don't quite understand this motivation. Can this be more verbose and include a bit about the mechanics? - Why is this necessary? For example, pinctrl-single already supports generic pinconf, and we can surely add a PIN_CONFIG_WAKEUP to include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h. - Also: how does this cooperate with irq_set_wake()? If a pin is set to GPIO it is often backed by a GPIO driver (which is calling pinctrl_request_gpio() etc), maybe we should just add a pinctrl_set_wake() then that the irqchip portions of the GPIO drivers can call down to so the pinctrl driver sets this bit if need be? I think this needs some more thought, especially the latter concern. Yours, Linus Walleij