From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B9089479 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 07:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=gmx.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmx.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmx.net header.i=wahrenst@gmx.net header.b="ll3ys4zK" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1704699205; x=1705304005; i=wahrenst@gmx.net; bh=KHU7GBjumZOwn/wTnI2elU57I6vWMfj/6wt4HfDkcQs=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=ll3ys4zKJSW2l4YtP7x+hzOgQGby91iRsGKnJsD+XgRg4w/fdAR/iyvvPb0jjtoh ZWXCyI2HLzirO4QsjnwyNirv2yX2L1/Q3WmSmmPb2HkLhXfRffcP11gP+VU7bIcVi 0CHoikO7DCnqQxZY1lbwGSY8bj58bhtsU5djI94UWQCZiYNwT4fANBX3MuXfjXb/x oUCGD8aIeBYhspahXEIAZeWsGXpAj5qa/PGcYbEH69mgprW4FKOspGz9OFXe5ES9h WfyMj5arke4RWeTEE2bOtin4AEFz7vaX4uaRUWiJ4UOerRqAB3bcn5PTiWpexRg6v IDP56YC/NdwDpwjeqg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [192.168.1.167] ([37.4.248.43]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0oBx-1r1VrM1O69-00wpJJ for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 08:33:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 08:33:24 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: pinctrl: Questions regarding pinconf_ops and bcm2835 From: Stefan Wahren To: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org References: Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Q+y/p7dMstPjMevb7pvnsh7HqfCoJqAqbyWvOW0p//K7fUmjNDQ JgCEQqnMaRKpr9IGXGh8PmBLV8Z/8YT1urksRxb8LxiYsVq6ZAqc1341S+GoZnceThHDoqv sG4w5v8A942CnCAkAoC0zb3br5zWtpVWxUoMrlO7d5DR8tfhMKlaV5lPPGaqxpI8+S+q96c M7Mu+peTTJc3fJgAbFe0Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:YWaQtJPGUpA=;30kJUCF9oCLqcFU9NoFGkafAUQj ZmrFGT3NQ23WNnuLbe9rY5hHNruzmjk0gJVY5vz3eGMv4kgYr7fbxb5RwNT3UxBR1OmMXWJuA +pTbUL0Vc1PKkCLG+s990bFnY4XngYWG/PwHZkjXlFwJlRYv6Iya16f7JqUK8CoJ1U8IP1rIs mVw6OXsmp/ZNUPST/dVJIHcNh2e2gc2o9A9EUAjMCtxBD0fbHNdldZc5PS0n3hUMI6mK926h8 xRr94HgmzbzJ66u/UEvD6ajSBnP8VfMiQKpvKx4BXKgodwZysW7IBfl6MENYMZroZhQTu7Y7R dIYFCMqNjbojkea1CZBlLx9jlTJlLB/RabZctdcgqjP/B8CZG6sDahPKvn6YBw4cVdrhM6AVR scK/wRvCj34ltBHhV82bw5yviqAKcuBh7nVKhIqJ9luaoNmeXLybuTILDD/aQ4YBjKTxcPWpB ykoAlHDc5hF1D5RMoDvk7D0jc1XMEve7aRtyikLlp5wS9fpcTJAO15/xRDmoKi9wW6BP23Muh vXqxk1zLdZEYbeESNFu/4u9Hkp7w2vpEChooicXTChmR6yN8AQx7nyUeb32OBLHqnjUbucc4C KDxgtOyFHs6bEFPTtI8Yg582km17AlNyrYATOBh+mxdpmlqW4ZsyILh7WIcWQsRqiqhbqjhta AU00YHAIQ1UcKOBtSN7jOKSuEXAR8aB79bEW9hP1jpUjsEmYohoay+a0jLfF0eeIZnLltNZcz Nyn7rtPIwBYVLJIF65rAc8Zl0ioR/FlvsMLr5vPX3OovMSvzBQstygDzLkjLKygvZjgWF+VWN aJ+brbIp1y7/5m10wmcx4aCNFR2aIbDHdNBG7rW/LfWk4xFrGYCuG2+QnJNPDwWycvI98wPJD Kva0dYxLjF5Yry40YuIF6V3fsHtRthK11qQ0bmqGtHkcWQ49ocM9z6f3tAU8tQheUA8mB+OwE PaYC2g== Am 03.01.24 um 13:12 schrieb Stefan Wahren: > Hi, > i recently noticed that the BCM2711 (used on Raspberry Pi 4) doesn't > implement pin_config_get, but this SOC is able to read back the bias > settings of the pins. After looking deeper into the pinconf_ops i had > some questions: > > 1. Are there any other benefits from implementing pin_config_get > except of a proper debugfs output? > > 2. Since the pin direction of BCM2835/2711 (input/output) is already > handled by pinmux_ops via gpio_set_direction, how should > pin_config_set handle PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT_ENABLE? > > 3. In case pin_config_get is implemented should the parameter > PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT_ENABLE and PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT be handled? > > Best regards > gentle ping