From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Keepax Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add support for muxing individual pins Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:45:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20171010084504.dusockowbrlosbsz@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170929101503.6769-1-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001ae601.pphosted.com ([67.231.149.25]:33084 "EHLO mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755763AbdJJIpM (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 04:45:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: ext Tony Lindgren , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , patches@opensource.cirrus.com, Bjorn Andersson , Stephen Warren On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Charles Keepax > wrote: > > > This series add support for muxing individual pins within > > pin mux, rather than just whole groups. Mainly, I had two > > motivations here, one to avoid the need to add loads of groups > > containing individual pins and hardware that actually has some > > internal concept of groups of pins, and disambiguating that from > > individual pin muxing. I have marked it as RFC to just get > > peoples opinions at this stage, although it should be pretty well > > tested. Sorry about the amount of files touched in patch 2 it > > would be possible to drop it from the chain although it leaves > > the field rather inaccurately named. > > > > Also I have left all the existing code paths parsing all mux > > options as groups from DT, and added a new helper to unlock the > > pin based functionality this should ease the transition across. > > There is currently a driver in the pin control subsystem that > handles individual pins and that is pinctrl-single.c. > > The driver is deployed for single pins muxed by a single > register, and if this infrastructure is to be deployed it must > be applied also in pinctrl-single. We cannot have several ways > of doing the same thing, that way lies madness. > Apologies for the oversight I will have a look at that and try to update the series as appropriate. I am travelling for the next couple of weeks so there might be a small lag in getting an updated version out. > So you need Tony Lindgren's review and direction on this > patch series. > Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > I see the problem you are setting out to solve. I too have ran > into the situation (on systems such as Qualcomm's) where > single-pin groups are more rule than exception. It would be > good to alleviate this and handle it in the core somehow. Thanks, Charles