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
next prev parent 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