[PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: add get_direction function
Linus Walleij
linus.walleij at linaro.org
Tue Mar 14 14:41:10 PDT 2017
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Timur Tabi <timur at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On ACPI platforms, the kernel has no control over the muxing (aka function)
> of the various pins. Firmware configures the TLMM controller for all pins,
> and configures them for whatever functions they're supposed to be.
I think it would be better if pin control and ACPI play along, and I bet that
will happen in the future. This is I guess a question for ACPI standardization
work.
> Therefore, on ACPI, the driver should never change the function of any pin.
> If it's set to something other than 0, then it should never touch that pin.
> Don't write to it, don't change the direction, and definitely don't change
> the function.
Does that mean that pins with 0 are free to play around with?
> So would it be acceptable, for example, to change msm_gpio_set() such that
> if the function of that pin is non-zero, just return an error?
I would ask the driver maintainer about his opinion, and also whoever
is an authority on ACPI for the TLMM-chips, I am no expert
in ACPI. Hell I'm not even good at device tree. Not to mention SFI.
Oh well...
> After all, if pin #17 is set to UART and not GPIO, then there's no point in
> setting that value to 1 or 0, because it's not muxed for GPIO and therefore,
> that 1/0 is not actually going anywhere. It won't be written to the pin.
>
> I hope I'm making sense.
In a way I guess, I'm just ignorant about how current ACPI implementations
work with hardware in this case so it is likely that you know this
better than me.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list