On 10/09/2013 06:44 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:40:49PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> NAK this this a Linux kernel implementation detail. Sherman Yin
>> fixed this up so the drivers does not have to imply any sequence
>> semantic for this.
>>
>> Study commit 03b054e9696c3cbd3d5905ec96da15acd0a2fe8d
>> "pinctrl: Pass all configs to driver on pin_config_set()"
>>
>> It is perfectly legal for a driver to accumulate the settings into
>> e.g. a single register write if it can, e.g.:
>>
>> u32 val = 0;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < num_configs; i++) {
>> switch() {
>> FOO:
>> val |= 1;
>> break;
>> BAR:
>> val |= 2:
>> break;
>> BAZ:
>> val |=4;
>> break;
>> };
>>
>> writel(val, base+pinreg);
>>
>> I.e. the driver may choose to apply configs sequentially, but that is
>> not at all necessary.
>
> So, just to be clear, what you're saying is that specifying two settings
> in a pinctrl declaration which provide different values results in
> undefined behaviour?
That makes sense to me, yes. It should be simple to separate out the
common/shared parts of a configuration, vs. other unique parts, and put
them into separate "pin configuration nodes", and hence avoid the
situation completely.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
