On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Mike Rapoport <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [091129 00:10]: >> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.h | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.h >> index e09c5d2..02a1b53 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.h >> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ >> >> /* Active pin states */ >> #define OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT 0 >> +#define OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT_PULLUP (OMAP_PULL_ENA | OMAP_PULL_UP) >> +#define OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT_PULLDOWN OMAP_PULL_ENA >> #define OMAP_PIN_INPUT OMAP_INPUT_EN >> #define OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP (OMAP_PULL_ENA | OMAP_INPUT_EN \ >> | OMAP_PULL_UP) > > Hmm, isn't this same as configuring as GPIO with up or > down value? > > Or is there's some need doing it with mux only? Like > power savings? This is intended for dedicated pins rather than GPIO. Actually, I've met only one till now, the HSUSB0_STP. If you define most of the mux configuration in the kernel you eventually run into very long lines in the omap_board_mux array. So, shortening at least some of them seems good idea to me. Take a look at my second patch ([1]) for example of what I mean :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools > Regards, > > Tony > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Sincerely Yours, Mike. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
