Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2

[Shawn Guo]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:43:23AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> [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.
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/