Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423279Ab3FUXaB (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:30:01 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([95.142.166.194]:52659 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161469Ab3FUXaA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:30:00 -0400 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Stephen Warren Cc: James Hogan , Linus Walleij , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Stephen Warren , =?utf-8?B?77+9?= , Linus Walleij , Anmar Oueja Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: establish pull-up/pull-down terminology Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:30:18 +0200 Message-ID: <3185376.o7RqphCDfQ@avalon> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.13-gentoo; KDE/4.10.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <51C4A447.3090807@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1371379548-6482-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <51C2F7BE.2060805@imgtec.com> <51C4A447.3090807@wwwdotorg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4062 Lines: 89 Hi Stephen, On Friday 21 June 2013 13:06:47 Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/20/2013 06:38 AM, James Hogan wrote: > > On 19/06/13 23:03, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 06/16/2013 04:45 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >>> From: Linus Walleij > >>> > >>> It is counter-intuitive to have "0" mean disable in a boolean > >>> manner for electronic properties of pins such as pull-up and > >>> pull-down. Therefore, define that a pull-up/pull-down argument > >>> of 0 to such a generic option means that the pin is > >>> short-circuited to VDD or GROUND. Pull disablement shall be > >>> done using PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE. > >>> > >>> Cc: Heiko St�bner > >>> Cc: James Hogan > >>> Cc: Laurent Pinchart > >>> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij > >>> --- > >>> > >>> include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h | 13 +++++++------ > >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h > >>> b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h index d414a77..67780f5 100644 > >>> --- a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h > >>> +++ b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h > >>> @@ -36,14 +36,15 @@ > >>> > >>> * tristate. The argument is ignored. > >>> * @PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP: the pin will be pulled up (usually with > >>> high > >>> * impedance to VDD). If the argument is != 0 pull-up is enabled, > >>> > >>> - * if it is 0, pull-up is disabled. > >>> + * if it is 0, pull-up it total, i.e. the pin is connected to VDD. > >>> > >>> * @PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN: the pin will be pulled down (usually > >>> with high * impedance to GROUND). If the argument is != 0 pull-down > >>> is enabled,>>> > >>> - * if it is 0, pull-down is disabled. > >>> + * if it is 0, pull-down is total, i.e. the pin is connected to GROUND. > >>> > >>> * @PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_PIN_DEFAULT: the pin will be pulled up or down > >>> based * on embedded knowledge of the controller, like current mux > >>> function.>>> > >>> - * If the argument is != 0 pull up/down is enabled, if it is 0, > >>> - * the pull is disabled. > >>> + * If the argument is != 0 pull up/down is enabled, if it is 0, the > >>> + * configuration is ignored. The proper way to disable it is to use > >>> + * @PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE. > >> > >> Why treat PULL_UP/PULL_DOWN differently from PULL_PIN_DEFAULT? > >> PULL_PIN_DEFAULT is logically simply a macro that selects PULL_UP/DOWN > >> based on what's "normal" for the pin's expected usage, so surely the > >> value associated with that option should behave identically? > > > > I'm not familiar with hardware that does this so I could be way wrong > > here, but presumably if there's a default up/down, there's probably a > > default resistance too. Does it really make sense to say > > "pull up or down depending on whatever the pin is intended for... but > > whichever it is must be XXX Ohm"? > > If you know the resistance you want, you surely already know whether you > > want it pull up or down with that resistence. > > IIRC the idea of the PULL_PIN_DEFAULT was to avoid having to specify > UP/DOWN for each pin/group, but could just say "default", which would > then reduce the number of pinctrl mapping table entries or pinctrl DT > property entries. I may be mistaken, but I've understood the PULL_PIN_DEFAULT option as a way to select the default bias configuration when the default value is hardware- controlled, not as a pure software option. > I don't think this would have any interaction with setting the resistance; > it's entirely plausible that you'd want the same explicit, or same default, > resistance, for all pins, irrespective of pull-up vs. down. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/