* Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> [171129 17:37]: > On 11/29/2017 09:01 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> [171102 23:18]: > >> It may happen that a device needs to force applying a state, e.g: > >> because it only defines one state of pin states (default) but loses > >> power/register contents when entering low power modes. Add a > >> pinctrl_dev::flags bitmask to help describe future quirks and define > >> PINCTRL_FLG_FORCE_STATE as such a settable flag. > > > > It makes sense to tag the existing state with the context loss > > information as otherwise we'll be duplicating the state in the > > pinctrl driver potentially for hundreds of pins. > > > > Maybe this patch description should clarify that it's the > > pinctrl device restoring the pin state, not the pinctrl > > consumer devices? > > > > So maybe just "a pinctrl device needs to force apply a state" > > instead of just device above? > > It's a bit more involved than that, the pinctrl consumer device might > want to restore a particular state by calling pinctrl_select_state(), > however, because of the (p->state == state)check, the pinctrl provider > driver has no chance of making that call do the actual HW programming. Hmm but isn't it the pinctrl provider device losing context here? I think the restore of the pin state should somehow happen automatically by the pinctrl provider driver without a need for the pinctrl consumer drivers to do anything. Or what's the use case for pinctrl consumer driver wanting to store a pin? Regards, Tony -- 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
