On 17 December 2019 12:31, Marco Felsch wrote: > On 19-12-17 09:53, Adam Thomson wrote: > > On 17 December 2019 09:01, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > > > > The enabel control signal is always available, please check [1] table > > > > > 63. There is a mux in front of the enable pin so: > > > > > > > > > > +------------- > > > > > Seq. |\ | Regulator > > > > > GPI1 | \ | > > > > > GPI2 | | -- > Enable > > > > > GPI3 | / | > > > > > |/ . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > Adam please correct me if this is wrong. > > > > > > > > Yes the register can always be configured regardless of the associated pin > > > > configuration, but if say GPIO1 was configured as a GPO but a regulator was > > > > configured to use GPIO1 as its GPI control mechanism, the output signal > from > > > > GPIO1 would be ignored, the sequencer control would not have any effect > and > > > > you're simply left with manual I2C control. Really we shouldn't be getting > into > > > > that situation though. If a GPIO is to be used as a regulator control signal > > > > then it should be marked as such and I don't think we should be able to use > that > > > > pin for anything other than regulator control. > > > > > > I see, so we have to guarantee that the requested gpio is configured as > > > input. This can be done by: > > > > This is one of the reasons I thought this was better suited to being done in the > > pinctrl/pinmux side. If you configure the GPIO as for regulator control then > > the code can automatically configure the GPIO for input. That doesn't then > need > > to be in the regulator driver. > > I still don't prefer that way.. pls check my arguments I already made > and I don't wanna repeat it again. Yes, I read your arguments but still can't agree :)
