public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Andrew Victor <andrew@sanpeople.com>,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>,
	jamey.hicks@hp.com, Kevin Hilman <khilman@mvista.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>, Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.19-rc5] arch-neutral GPIO calls
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:09:46 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45628A1A.8060101@billgatliff.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200611202045.09760.david-b@pacbell.net>

David Brownell wrote:

>On Monday 20 November 2006 7:44 pm, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>  
>
>>So, you're saying that if GPIOA1 can come out on pins ZZ1 and BB6, then 
>>there would be two unique "GPIO numbers", one for each possibility?
>>    
>>
>
>No; one number, since it's controlled by the same set of bits in the GPIO
>controller (e.g. bit 12 in the registers of bank 3) regardless of how the
>signals are routed out through pins.  That's my point:  GPIO number need
>not imply a particular pin, and vice versa.
>  
>

Ok, thanks for the OMAP stuff.  I think I can understand now.

Why not have GPIO numbers refer to unique combinations of GPIO+pin?  If 
the GPIO line is tied to a piece of external hardware, that connection 
is surely through a specific pin.  So it seems like you'd need GPIO+pin 
every time there was an option.


>So regardless of whether GPIO_62 is routed to ball M7 or G20, it's still
>going to use number 62, which is bit 14 in various registers of the GPIO4
>module, starting at 0xfffbb400 ... and for good fun, the muxing API will
>refer to the balls on the (smaller) ZZG package even if your board uses
>the larger ZDY package (so your schematics might say J5 not M7, that table
>is very handy in such cases).
>  
>

Yikes!  :)

Explain to me why having GPIO enumerations map to unique GPIO+pin 
combinations would be a bad idea in this case?  It seems like the point 
here is to help a driver find and assert their GPIO _pin_ so that the 
driver can can talk to the attached external hardware.  Having an 
enumeration "GPIO62M7" would be a handy way to do that.  Maybe the 
enumeration is actually defined as ((0x400 << 16) | (14 << 8) | 4), or 
some other encoding that makes it easy in the implementation of 
gpio_XXX() to find the right registers and get the routing set up 
correctly.  It's just an opaque, magic number to the driver after all.

And since GPIOs are arch/mach/board-specific anyway, who would care if 
OMAP was the only system that had an enumeration called "GPIO62M7"?  
When other boards set up their platform_struct, they'd use the 
enumerations available for that platform.  "GPIOA1" in systems where 
that GPIO line could only go to one pin per the datasheet, for example.





b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com


  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-21  5:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-11 23:41 [patch/rfc 2.6.19-rc5] arch-neutral GPIO calls David Brownell
2006-11-12  1:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-11-12  3:04   ` David Brownell
2006-11-12  3:15     ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-11-13  3:30 ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 17:38 ` Paul Mundt
2006-11-13 17:56   ` Thiago Galesi
2006-11-13 19:25     ` David Brownell
2006-11-13 19:50       ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 18:19   ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 18:38     ` Paul Mundt
2006-11-13 19:29       ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 20:15         ` Paul Mundt
2006-11-20 21:49           ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  3:44             ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-21  4:45               ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  5:09                 ` Bill Gatliff [this message]
2006-11-21  5:35                   ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  6:09                     ` Paul Mundt
2006-11-21 18:13                       ` David Brownell
2006-11-22  3:36                         ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-22  3:55                           ` Paul Mundt
2006-11-22  4:45                           ` [Bulk] " David Brownell
2006-11-22  4:47                             ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-21 15:57                     ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-23  0:40                       ` David Brownell
2006-11-30  6:57                         ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-11-30  7:29                           ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-11-30 22:24                           ` David Brownell
2006-11-20 22:15           ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  2:56             ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 20:00       ` David Brownell
2006-11-13 21:30         ` Paul Mundt
2006-11-14  3:21           ` David Brownell
2006-11-13 19:21   ` David Brownell
2006-11-13 19:43     ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 20:15       ` David Brownell
2006-11-13 20:26         ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 20:53           ` David Brownell
2006-11-13 20:58             ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-13 20:29         ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-16 14:54 ` [RFC/PATCH] arch-neutral GPIO calls: AVR32 implementation Haavard Skinnemoen
2006-11-20 21:47   ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  3:11     ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-21  5:06       ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  5:51         ` Bill Gatliff
2006-11-21 18:19           ` David Brownell
2006-11-21  9:11     ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2006-11-21 19:03       ` David Brownell
2006-11-28 12:36         ` [RFC/PATCH] arch-neutral GPIO calls: AVR32 implementation [take 2] Haavard Skinnemoen
2006-11-30 19:05           ` David Brownell
2006-12-01  9:51             ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2006-12-20 21:04 ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 0/6] arch-neutral GPIO calls David Brownell
2006-12-20 21:08   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 1/6] GPIO core David Brownell
2006-12-27 17:49     ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-28 22:05       ` David Brownell
2006-12-29  0:27         ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-30  1:18           ` David Brownell
2007-01-01 20:55             ` Pavel Machek
2007-01-01 21:27               ` David Brownell
2007-01-02 14:18                 ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-20 21:09   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 2/6] OMAP GPIO wrappers David Brownell
2006-12-20 21:11   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 3/6] AT91 " David Brownell
2006-12-21  6:10     ` Andrew Morton
2006-12-21  6:45       ` David Brownell
2006-12-20 21:12   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 4/6] PXA " David Brownell
2006-12-21  6:12     ` Andrew Morton
2006-12-21  6:44       ` David Brownell
2006-12-21 14:27         ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-21 15:03           ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-12-21 17:25             ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-21 19:32               ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-12-21 20:10                 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-21 20:32                   ` Bill Gatliff
2006-12-22  6:53                   ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-12-28 20:47                     ` David Brownell
2006-12-30  2:15                       ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-30  2:38                         ` David Brownell
2007-01-01 19:43                         ` David Brownell
2006-12-30  1:13                     ` David Brownell
2006-12-21 19:25             ` David Brownell
2006-12-27 17:53     ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-28 20:48       ` David Brownell
2006-12-28 20:50         ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-28 20:53           ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-20 21:13   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 5/6] SA1100 " David Brownell
2006-12-21  6:13     ` Andrew Morton
2006-12-22  7:16       ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-12-22 15:05         ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-30  2:21         ` David Brownell
2006-12-30  3:15           ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-30  6:01             ` David Brownell
2006-12-30 13:59               ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-12-30 15:08                 ` Russell King
2006-12-23 11:37     ` Russell King
2006-12-23 20:39       ` David Brownell
2006-12-27 18:24     ` Pavel Machek
2006-12-20 21:14   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 6/6] S3C2410 " David Brownell
2006-12-21 10:33     ` Arnaud Patard
2006-12-21 15:29       ` pHilipp Zabel
2006-12-23 11:40       ` Russell King
2006-12-20 23:30   ` [patch 2.6.20-rc1 0/6] arch-neutral GPIO calls Håvard Skinnemoen
2006-12-20 23:46     ` David Brownell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=45628A1A.8060101@billgatliff.com \
    --to=bgat@billgatliff.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=andrew@sanpeople.com \
    --cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
    --cc=hskinnemoen@atmel.com \
    --cc=jamey.hicks@hp.com \
    --cc=khilman@mvista.com \
    --cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nico@cam.org \
    --cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox