On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Mack <zonque@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Because we wrote in Documentation/pinctrl.txt that if GPIO > >> and pin control handle the same lines, they should be > >> implemented in the gpio driver by calling out to pinctrl's > >> extern int pinctrl_request_gpio(unsigned gpio); > >> extern void pinctrl_free_gpio(unsigned gpio); > >> extern int pinctrl_gpio_direction_input(unsigned gpio); > >> extern int pinctrl_gpio_direction_output(unsigned gpio); > > > > Hmm. So how is a certain pin muxed to its GPIO function then? > > By calling exactly the above functions from the GPIO > driver. > > > And how > > can pullup/pulldown features be selected? > > So as stated in: > "Drivers needing both pin control and GPIOs" > > This can be done in several ways, but this way is one option > indeed, so that is a valid reason for having this pinctrl here. > > Is biasing what you need to do? > > > I admittedly might lack some background here, and if there's better > > solution to what I want to do, I'd be happy to hear about it :) > > Sure, no problem we've even tried to document it :-) > > All I really want is that platforms have a clear idea about > how and where the pins will be handled, and that if GPIO > and pinctrl handle the same lines, they need to interact. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij Friendly poke. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
