On 2017-07-14 23:27, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2017-07-13 15:35:02)
>> Quoting Peter Rosin (2017-07-11 22:04:46)
>>>
>>> Maybe no need for a compatible update either, if it works to do something
>>> like this in the DT?
>>>
>>> usb_switch: usb-switch {
>>> compatible = "gpio-mux";
>>> mux-gpios = <&pm8916_gpios 4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>,
>>> <&pm8916_gpios XXX GPIO_ACTIVE_XXX>;
>>> idle-state = <2>;
>>> #mux-control-cells = <0>;
>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>> pinctrl-0 = <&usb_sw_sel_pm>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> But I obviously know little about how things are wired and really works,
>>> so that might be totally off...
>>>
>>> Otherwise, maybe a generic mux-pinctrl driver would do the trick?
>>> (compare with drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c)
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Testing looks good when I use the gpio-mux binding. The only thing I
Glad to hear it, I didn't really want a new driver so similar to the
mux-gpio driver...
> noticed is that gpio-mux driver is requesting the gpio with
> GPIOD_OUT_LOW. Is that intentional?
Not really intentional, it was just easy.
> I worry that may randomly mux the
> D+/D- lines during probe if the gpio is asserted at probe time. It isn't
> a problem for me right now, because the mux is power on defaulted to
> have the gpio deasserted, but it may be a problem if the default
> changes.
It will not change, the only change I will accept is if the code in
mux-gpio can be arranged to request the gpios with the idle-state from
the start. But even then, the default idle-state (0) will not change.
So, you should be safe.
I will look at the new patches later.
Cheers,
Peter
--
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
