On Thursday 05 of December 2013 18:49:56 Kevin Bracey wrote: > On 05/12/2013 17:11, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Thursday 05 of December 2013 15:07:47 Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 10:29:42AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> > >>> So a suggested patch to support weak hogs would be interesting > >>> to look at. Can you provide details on how you think this would > >>> work? > >> Or should we be going and applying the default state to all devices on > >> init without worrying about a driver appearing? > > If a device isn't used, then it's often better to configure the pins for > > a different function, such as GPIO, to minimize leakage current. > > > > And there can also be mutually-exclusive drivers choosing different > default states for the same pin. I think you do need a separate "safe" > indicator. That's not quite true, as on a single board you should rather have a single device node with "okay" status referencing given set of pins. Still, I think that a separate safe state is the way to go. > > My current thought is that a late-init "make safe all unclaimed pins" > pass would make sense - you can't really mess with pins in an automated > fashion on init, as it can mess up bootloader->driver handover. There > already exist late-init "turn off all unclaimed clocks" (at least on > shmobile) That's a feature of Common Clock Framework. > and "turn off all unclaimed regulators", and it would fit that > model. Maybe that's the way to do it. I need to think a bit more on this, especially considering our (Samsung's) use cases. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |