Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] gpio: Add gpio-delay support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 16/04/2023 13:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:21 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 16/04/2023 13:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:04 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2023 11:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 10:42 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/04/2023 17:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 9:37 AM Alexander Stein
>>>>>>> <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 11. April 2023, 11:34:16 CEST schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:19 AM Alexander Stein
>>>>>>>>> <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, taking the above into consideration, why is it GPIO property to
>>>>>>>>> begin with? This is PCB property of the certain platform design that
>>>>>>>>> needs to be driven by a specific driver, correct?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True this is induced by the PCB, but this property applies to the GPIO,
>>>>>>>> neither the GPIO controller output, nor the GPIO consumer is aware of.
>>>>>>>> So it has to be added in between. The original idea to add a property for the
>>>>>>>> consumer driver is also rejected, because this kind of behavior is not limited
>>>>>>>> to this specific driver.
>>>>>>>> That's why the delay is inserted in between the GPIO output and GPIO consumer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least this is pin configuration (but external to the SoC),
>>>>>>>>> so has to be a _separate_ pin control in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I don't get what you mean by _separate_ pin control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you mentioned above this can be applied theoretically to any pin of
>>>>>>> the SoC, That pin may or may not be a GPIO or a pin that can be
>>>>>>> switched to the GPIO mode. Hence this entire idea shouldn't be part of
>>>>>>> the existing _in-SoC_ pin control driver if any. This is a purely
>>>>>>> separate entity, but at the same time it adds a property to a pin,
>>>>>>> hence pin control.
>>>>>>> At the same time, it's not an SoC related one, it's a PCB. Hence _separate_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that anything here is related to pin control. Pin control
>>>>>> is specific function of some device which allows different properties or
>>>>>> different functions of a pin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but from a hardware perspective I have to disagree with you.
>>>>> It's a property of the _pin_ and not of a GPIO. Any pin might have the
>>>>> same property. That's why it's definitely _not_ a property of GPIO,
>>>>> but wider than that.
>>>>
>>>> I did not say this is a property of GPIO. I said this is nothing to do
>>>> with pin control, configuration and pinctrl as is.
>>>
>>> Ah, I see. But still is a property of the pin on the PCB level.
>>
>> No, it is property of a circuit, so property of two pins and a wire
>> between them. Not a property of one pin.
> 
> Electrically speaking -- yes, software speaking, no, this is the
> property of the one end (platfrom abstraction in the software) and as
> you said, consumer which may be SoC, or the device connected to the
> SoC (depending on the signal direction), or both (like pull-up for
> I2C).
> 
>>> That's
>>> why I said that it should be like a "proxy" driver that has to be a
>>> consumer of the pins on one side and provide the pins with this
>>> property on the other.
>>
>> Not sure, why do you need it for anything else than GPIOs? What is the
>> real world use case for proxy driver of non-GPIO lines?
> 
> I2C is an example where we have something in between, which both of

Are you sure you have RC (not just resistor) in I2C?

> the ends are using and this is the property of PCB, but luckily we
> don't need anything special in the software for that, right? But from
> the electrical point of view it's exactly a non-GPIO property. That's
> why "proxy".

Still I do not see any reason to call it anything else than GPIO. If you
think that there is any other usage, please bring it as an real,
non-theoretical example.

Best regards,
Krzysztof




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux