[PATCH v2 1/2] pinctrl: pinctrl-imx: add support for set bits for general purpose registers
b29396 at freescale.com
Mon Jul 16 23:02:26 EDT 2012
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 04:43:03AM +0800, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Dong Aisheng <b29396 at freescale.com> wrote:
> Hm, hm. This makes be ever more hesitant to have this in pinctrl.
> Remeber again that nothing stops you from remapping the same register
> range in another driver.
Well, i understand and agree with your point.
We will try and see if we can find a better place.
> > +#define IMX6Q_GPR0_CLOCK_8_MUX_SEL_MASK (0x3 << 30)
> This belongs in drivers/clk/*
> Why funnel these register writes through pinctrl? Just remap that address
> offset in the clk driver.
Hmm, i looked a bit more, not sure they could be put in driver/clk/*
The mux here are module internal clocks, like:
Selects the source of asrck_clock_3 in ASRC according to clock muxing scheme:
00 audmux.amx_output_rxclk_p7 muxed with ssi3.ssi_srck
I'm not sure we should abstract them in clk framework since usually they're
internally controlled by module driver itself.
> > +#define IMX6Q_GPR0_DMAREQ_MUX_SEL7_MASK BIT(7)
> This belongs in drivers/dma/*
> Same comments.
> > +#define IMX6Q_GPR1_PCIE_REQ_MASK (0x3 << 30)
> Looks like it belongs in some PCI driver or glue layer.
> > +#define IMX6Q_GPR1_MIPI_COLOR_SW BIT(25)
> > +#define IMX6Q_GPR1_DPI_OFF BIT(24)
> Looks related to some test or something...
> And so on.
Yes, most of them are modules specific.
> If you really wants a "funnel driver" doing all these diverse things,
> I'd put it in drivers/mfd.
Yes, we may wants this "funnel driver".
What i'm thinking is we may only provides setting api for conveniently use
and how drivers use it or abstract it is driver specific.
> This whole issue appears in other systems so you're not alone
> on this, for example the ux500 PRCMU driver has exactly these
So how does ux500 PRCMU handle this?
> I'm also contemplating drivers/syscon again, but
> I have a hard time seeing it would be much more than another
> drivers/mfd-similar construct.
yes, that may be a proper place.
> I would really like input from Arnd and Samuel and other clever
> people on the placement of drivers like this one :-/
> But close address range proximity to the pin controller is not a
> reason to have it in pinctrl.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel