From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: boris brezillon <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@gmail.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH alt 4/4] pinctrl: at91: rework debounce configuration
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:41:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <523734B2.6050208@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52340B68.5020505@overkiz.com>
On 09/14/2013 01:08 AM, boris brezillon wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> Le 14/09/2013 00:40, Stephen Warren a écrit :
>> On 09/13/2013 01:53 AM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>> AT91 SoCs do not support per pin debounce time configuration.
>>> Instead you have to configure a debounce time which will be used for all
>>> pins of a given bank (PIOA, PIOB, ...).
...
>>> Required properties for pin configuration node:
...
>>> -DEBOUNCE_VAL (0x3fff << 17): debounce val.
>>
>> This change would break the DT ABI since it removes a feature that's
>> already present.
...
>> I suppose it's still up to the Atmel maintainers to decide whether this
>> is appropriate, or whether the impact to out-of-tree DT files would be
>> problematic.
>>
>> Assuming the DT ABI can be broken, I think I'd prefer to do so, rather
>> than take "non-alt" patch 4/4, since a per-pin DEBOUNCE_VAL clearly
>> doesn't correctly model the HW, assuming the patch description is
>> correct. I don't think arguments re: the generic pinconf debounce
>> property hold; if the Linux-specific/internal generic property doesn't
>> apply, the DT binding should not be bent to adjust to it, but should
>> rather still represent the HW itself.
>
> What about the last point in my list: "reconfigure debounce after
> startup" ?
>
> Here is an example that may be problematic:
>
> Let's say you have one device using multiple configuration of pins
> ("default", "xxx", "yyy").
> The "default" config needs a particular debounce time on a given pin and
> the "xxx" and "yyy"
> configs need different debounce time on the same pin.
>
> How would you solve this with this patch approach ?
Each state has a different pin configuration node, and hence can specify
a different debounce value. This patch has no impact on that (it just
changes whether the state-specific node specifies the debounce value in
a single standalone property, or encodes it into each entry in the pins
property, all within the same node).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-16 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-13 7:43 [RFC PATCH 0/4] pinctrl: at91: various fixes Boris BREZILLON
2013-09-13 7:45 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] pinctrl: at91: fix typos Boris BREZILLON
2013-09-14 16:45 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-09-27 12:10 ` Linus Walleij
2013-09-13 7:47 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] pinctrl: at91: fix sam9x5 debounce/deglitch functions Boris BREZILLON
2013-09-14 16:49 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-09-27 12:12 ` Linus Walleij
2013-09-13 7:49 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: at91: improve pinconf_set/get function robustness Boris BREZILLON
2013-09-14 16:55 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-09-13 7:51 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] pinctrl: at91: check for debounce time conflicts Boris BREZILLON
2013-09-13 7:53 ` [RFC PATCH alt 4/4] pinctrl: at91: rework debounce configuration Boris BREZILLON
2013-09-13 22:40 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-14 7:08 ` boris brezillon
2013-09-16 16:41 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2013-09-16 17:18 ` boris brezillon
2013-09-16 18:14 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-14 16:31 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-09-14 16:37 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-09-15 6:21 ` boris brezillon
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=523734B2.6050208@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=b.brezillon@overkiz.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
--cc=richard.genoud@gmail.com \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=rob@landley.net \
/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