Re: [PATCH 4/6] pinctrl: single: Add support for wake-up interrupts

[Balaji T K]

On Friday 11 October 2013 09:06 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > What the pin control driver should do is control the pins. Whether the registers
> > > are spread out in the entire IO-memory does not matter. We did have one system
> > > which placed the IO-muxing together with each peripheral (!) and I did
> > > still want
> > > that to be handled by a single pinctrl driver picking out windows to all these
> > > IO-ranges.
> > >
> > > Things like the PRM which has (my guess) a gazillion registers related to its
> > > deep-core SoC stuff should be handled by things like
> > > drivers/mfd/syscon.c, which means it is dead simple for some other driver
> > > using "just this one register" in that range to get a handle at it and poke it
> > > using syscon_node_to_regmap() (just derference an ampersand ref)
> > > syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible() (use a compatible string)
> > > all returning a regmap * that you can use to poke these registers.
> >
> > The register handling is fine. But how do we deal with resource handling?
> > e.g. the block that has the deep-core registers might need to be clocked or powered
> > before the registers can be accessed.
>
> Right, that's the key issue here. The register access would have to be conditional
> based on the hardware modules PM state. Otherwise we'll have hard to trace hangs
> and oopses.
Hi Tony,

How are the clocks/power state currently handled in case of omap4_pmx_core,
omap4_pmx_wkup register access via pinctrl-single ?

Thanks and Regards,
Balaji T K
--
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/