From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753477Ab2AaAy6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:54:58 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:37330 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752851Ab2AaAy5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:54:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:07:11 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Stephen Warren , Dong Aisheng-B29396 , "Linus Walleij (linus.walleij@linaro.org)" , "Sascha Hauer (s.hauer@pengutronix.de)" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "cjb@laptop.org" , "Simon Glass (sjg@chromium.org)" , Dong Aisheng , Thomas Abraham , "Grant Likely (grant.likely@secretlab.ca)" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2 Message-ID: <20120131010708.GA24681@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF1780DAB4CE@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <20120123210052.GS22818@atomide.com> <20120126093610.GD2287@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120126175122.GX22818@atomide.com> <20120127071944.GC32740@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120127171653.GI13504@atomide.com> <20120130021041.GB10470@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120130174323.GF9339@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120130174323.GF9339@atomide.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:43:23AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Shawn Guo [120129 17:27]: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:16:53AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > ... > > > I guess the analog we should follow here is clk_get and clk_set_rate, > > > except we would have pinconf_set_state with predefined states. > > > > > It seems working for cases that we only change pinconf but never pinmux > > for different configuration states. But how would that work for cases > > that require mux change for different configuration states? > > I don't see why we should not allow changing the mux state with pinconf > too, after all it's the mux/pin that's locked, not the functionality of > the pin. > My point is I do not see how we can use the current pinmux APIs design to change mux in the way how clk_get and clk_set_rate work. Or you have a pinmux APIs reconstruction on your mind? Regards, Shawn > An example of this would be remuxing a shared UART line between rx and > tx. Those kind of cases could be defined as PMX_DIRECTION_INPUT and > PMX_DIRECTION_OUTPUT so driver could call Linux generic functions for > those if implemented. >