Re: [PATCH 2/3] pinctrl: msm: Mux out gpio function with gpio_request()

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

 



Quoting Linus Walleij (2018-07-09 06:54:01)
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:56 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I could do with some more clarity from Linus in the "Drivers needing
> > both pin control and GPIOs" section of
> > Documentation/driver-api/pinctl.rst but I read that section as stating
> > that the GPIO driver needs to mux the pin as a GPIO by requesting the
> > pinctrl backend to do so, unless the hardware overrides the muxed
> > function selection when the GPIO is used, without involving pinctrl
> > software.
> 
> Yeah that text is especially terse :/
> 
> What it says (or what I meant to say) is that there is a choice
> between letting the pin control and GPIO functionality on the
> same pin be handled orthogonally or implementing these
> gpio_*() callbacks into the pin control backend, but in either case
> the two APIs must be used in sequence:
> pin control setting comes first, second the GPIO subsystem can
> request the GPIO line.
> 
> I'll see if I can clarify.
> 

Ok. Is my interpretation correct though? The fundamental question here
is if gpio_request() should remux the GPIO for the GPIO function or if
drivers are expected to have pinmux settings to use their pin as a GPIO.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux