> > But I don't have discrete hardware. I have a bunch of stuff soldered onto a > > board with ad-hoc connections chosen to make the life of the hardware builder > > easy rather than chosen to make the life of the software developer easy > > (which I think is the correct choice). > > > > So I need to tell DT "This device is plugged into this UART, and there is no > > DTR line, but when the UARTs DTR line would be asserted (if it had one), then > > I need that regulator of there turned on". or maybe "I need to toggle this > > GPIO with exactly this pattern, while watching that GPIO to see if it is > > working". > > > > So I thought: > > > > 1/ give the UART a "virtual" DTR so it could drive any GPIO > > 2/ create a "gpio-to-regulator" driver which presented as a (virtual) gpio > > and responded to state changes on that GPIO by turning on or off the > > regulator > > 3/ create a dedicated driver which knows how to toggle the magic GPIO while > > watching the other GPIO to convince the silly device to wakeup, or go to > > sleep, as required, and have this appear as a (virtual) GPIO. Unless you are using it as a "real' DTR line then I think this is the wrong approach. This problem actually is turning up in both PC class and ARM boxes now all over the place for three reasons I am seeing. 1. We are getting a lot of hardware moving to serial attached bluetooth/gps/etc because of the power win. In addition ACPI can describe power relationships and what is on the other end of a UART embedded in the device 2. We've got cheap hardware with modem lines being "retrofitted" via gpio 3. There are a subset of devices that have extra control lines beyond the usual serial port ones. These range from additional control lines for things like smartcard programmers to port muxing. > I have no problem either way, just that unused code doesn't have to be > sitting in the tree and I'm not entirely sure this GPIO should be > handled by omap-serial.c, perhaps something more generic inside > serial-core so other UART drivers can benefit from it. serial-core provides power hooks. If the goal is that this comes on when you power up the uart and goes away on the last close then the hooks are there already. If its ldisc specific then the tty layer also calls the device on ldisc changes precisely so it can make hardware specific twiddles in such cases. A set of gpios on the tty_port object would not go amiss and would also address the PC case. > considering this is a BTUART device, why didn't you do this at the ldisc > level ? hci_uart_open() sounds like a good choice from a quick thinking. ldiscs are hardware independent. Nothing about hardware belongs in an ldisc. Any ldisc should within reason work on any port. What I propsed when it came up ages ago was to expose some gpio settings in the tty, to provide ways for them to be set by default and also ioctls to configure them. I still think this (but moved into the tty_port as its a persistent hardware property) is a good idea now that we are starting to see more use cases than weird dongles and muxes on pre-production reference boards. With my tty and serial hat on I think a power gpio is a no-brainer even without doing the other work and therefore it should probably be described generically for a serial port in the DT as well as in the ACPI data. If you should also be able to give it a regulator to use as well that also seems to make complete sense. Alan -- 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
