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

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:58:21PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > and this is one of the issues we're all trying to solve today so we have
> > > > single zImage approach for the ARM port.
> 
> > > I don't see the relevance of single zImage here; device tree is supposed
> > > to solve that one.
> 
> > DT is part of the deal. DT alone will solve nothing.
> 
> If DT isn't relevant I'm not sure what you're saying about single

I didn't say DT is irrelevant. I said it's not the *only* thing.

> zImage?  The only relevance I can see for that is the data and
> configuration bloating the kernel, something that DT is supposed to
> address - this is the main use case where DT has benefits.
> 
> > > Well, nothing's going to stop that happening if people are determined
> > > enough - one could equally see that there'll be flags getting passed to
> > > control the ordering of calls if things are open coded.  I would expect
> > > that with a power domain style approach any data would be being passed
> > > directly and bypassing the driver completely.
> 
> > situations like that would be a lot more rare in open coded case, don't
> > you think ? Also a lot more local, since they will show up on a driver
> > source code which is used in a small set of use cases, instead of being
> > part of the pm domain implementation for the entire platform.
> 
> I don't see how open coding helps prevent people doing silly things, it
> seems like it'd have at most neutral impact (and of course it does
> require going round all the drivers every time someone comes up with a
> new idea for doing things which is a bit tedious).
> 
> > > Essentially all the patches I'm seeing adding pinctrl are totally
> > > mindless, most of them are just doing the initial setup on boot and not
> > > doing any active management at runtime at all.
> 
> > have you considered that might be just a first step ? I have mentioned
> > this before. We first add the bare minimum and work on PM optimizations
> > later. You can be sure most likely those mindless patches you're seeing
> > are probably building blocks for upcoming patches adding sleep/idle
> > modes.
> 
> The sleep/idle modes are just a basic extension of the same idea, I'd
> not anticipate much difference there (and indeed anything where pinmux
> power saving makes a meaningful impact will I suspect need to be using
> runtime PM to allow SoC wide power savings anyway).
> 
> > > A big part of my point here is that it's not at all clear to me that it
> > > is the driver which knows what's going on.  For SoC-specific IPs you can
> > > be confident about how the SoC integration looks but for IPs that get
> > > reused widely this becomes less true.  
> 
> > I don't think so. As long as we keep the meaning of the 'default'
> > pinctrl state to mean that this is the working state for the IP,
> > underlying pinctrl-$arch implementation should know how to set muxing up
> > properly, no ?
> 
> But then this comes round to the mindless code that ought to be factored
> out :)  Only the more interesting cases that do something unusual really
> register here.

fair enough. I see your point. Not saying I agree though, just that this
discussion has been flying for far too long, so feel free to provide
patches implementing what you're defending here ;-)

Guess code will speak for itself. On way or another, we need OMAP keypad
driver working in mainline and I don't think your arguments are strong
enough to keep $SUBJECT from being merged, unless you can provide
something stable/tested for v3.8 merge window.

-- 
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature