Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal

From: Linus Walleij
Date: Mon Feb 06 2012 - 12:29:34 EST

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think the main argument to call it pinctrl/pinmux still is to provide
> some named API and reason for drivers to invoke when they wanted to make
> use of the feature.
> In other words, it's pretty easy to see why and when a driver would
> invoke a pin control API to configure the HW surrounding the HW module
> that driver controls. If we don't call that pinctrl, what else might we
> call it? That said, I'm sure we can come up with some reasonable more
> general-purpose name.

I feel pinctrl would be misleading and overly specific. Maybe something
like "hwstates" or "initvectors" or similar is more to the point. Or
just "soc-bios" :-)

An elegant way of doing it would be to hide the current pinctrl calls
behind the new API, say

hws = hardware_state_get(dev);

Then these can boil down to simple register read/writes or divert to
pinctrl or pinconfig.

>> A controlled set of register read/writes and maybe also conditionals
>> (...)
> I think anything beyond a simple linear list of register writes would
> get a /lot/ of pushback. See for example Grant's comments in one of the
> links I referenced:

OK. Keeping it simple is best then I guess.

> I can imagine the data including flags like 8/16/32/64-bit register
> accesses, or read-modify-write vs. just write (i.e. do we need to
> include a mask or not) being reasonable, but any state, looping, delay,
> conditionals etc. being nak'd.


I have this mux on the AB8500 on the Ux500 that is on I2C.
So this off-chip device can mux its pins between GPIO and some
other functions. So I'd need something that can provide a
read/write function handle or so rather than plain register writes.
Or is this concept only for memory-mapped stuff?

>> While I would probably mourn the death of sematics I also see
>> that if the goal is to get huge static data sets out of the kernel,
>> something like this may be the best way to get there.
> Yes, the loss of semantics also doesn't entirely appeal to me. However,
> I wonder if the other advantages don't outweigh that.

I will certainly finalize the pinctrl subsystem as-is, adding the
pin configurations states as the last major piece. If for nothing
else it provides some understanding of the problem space.

I think we should keep both for the time being and consider the
alternative approach when patches appear. So if/when someone
creates a new subsystem like this, drivers can move over to it on a
per-driver basis. If there are zero drivers left in pinctrl it can be

Linus Walleij
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at