Re: [PATCHv2] Input: omap4-keypad: Add pinctrl support

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:18:01AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> OK, so with drivers/base/, have you considered doing default pinctrl
>> selection in bus's probe() methods? Yo would select the default
>> configuration before starting probing the device and maybe select idle
>> when probe fails or device is unbound? That would still keep the link
>> between device object and pinctrl and there less busses than device
>> drivers out there.
>
> it starts to become confusing after a while. I mean, there's a reason
> why all drivers explictly call pm_runtim_enable(), right ?
>
> From a first thought, one could think of just yanking that into bus'
> probe() as you may suggest, but sometimes the device is already enabled,
> so we need extra tricks:
>
> pm_runtime_set_active();
> pm_runtime_enable();
> pm_runtime_get();
>
> the same could happen with pinctrl eventually. What if a device needs to
> do something else (an errata fix as an example) before requesting
> pinctrl's default state ?

I can confirm this. Just the ordering between enabling/disabling
resources like clock/pins/powerdomain screw things up for us
and even if we can surely centralize parts of this code as such
into the drivers/base or pm_* namespace we would still need
explicit calls from the driver.

I'm thinking that maybe the best helpers are actually static
inline functions in the <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> header
rather than moving anything into drivers/base/* if the
code duplication is the real problem.

Yours,
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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/