On 24.07.2020 23:52, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 11:19:18PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> >>>> +- pinctrl >>>> + add extra pinctrl to configure SCL/SDA pins to GPIO function for bus >>>> + recovery, call it "gpio" or "recovery" state >>> >>> I think we should stick with "gpio" only. That is what at91 and imx have >>> in their bindings. pxa uses "recovery" as a pinctrl state name but I >>> can't find any further use or documentation of that. PXA is not fully >>> converted to the best of my knowledge, so maybe it is no problem for PXA >>> to switch to "gpio", too? We should ask Russell King (cced). > > Fully converted to what? The generic handling where the i2c core layer > handles everything to do with recovery, including the switch between > modes? > > i2c-pxa _intentionally_ carefully handles the switch between i2c mode and > GPIO mode, and I don't see a generic driver doing that to avoid causing > any additional glitches on the bus. Given the use case that this recovery > is targetted at, avoiding glitches is very important to keep. Why is it not possbile to handle glitches in a generic way? I guess it depends on the pinctl, but we could treat a worst-case scenario to assure the switch between states is done properly. > >>> Russell, do you object naming the pinctrl state for bus recovery in >>> the pxa i2c driver from "recovery" to "gpio"? >> >> No response, so far. I suggest now to support the "recovery" naming but >> mark it as deprecated. Opinions? > > I don't have a preference on the exact naming. > > -- > RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last! >
