Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211021174223.43310-1-kernel@esmil.dk> <20211021174223.43310-13-kernel@esmil.dk>
 <CAHp75Vf3yNoKxguHP3EPcRV_3tG++Fd=FVM0MXqW4_SmLA6HEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBLGcxEwkcZn2CC69zLaVqL8ocS6r6HDaaoUF09gg1mpDxFzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vc5-Sg-0kKN=OMs_2iJbtc+D9=f0-Sp+SpY5O3roU3XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBLGcxnmt4Ki4EHAXeoJX5mJMyeioZXhGaDsKm_wk86D4js3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBLGcyOfo3r0Viidf9kyW0Q9yD4uqTLm90+7O=T49v7ZHurfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vc1EES8c7XD-MbQNdtCJA3YvvEYd3_e378rVCe6=AmhvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANBLGczXN4JV1Xrym_YGiAvrOFwkd4-PDjfvL93ZMgePb7wFVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANBLGczXN4JV1Xrym_YGiAvrOFwkd4-PDjfvL93ZMgePb7wFVA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:51:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdufyQpMVqhXK_UmOmsHSd8v2aDA-hKQNeQQfQF2-gJFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/16] pinctrl: starfive: Add pinctrl driver for
 StarFive SoCs
To:     Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
Cc:     linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
        Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@sifive.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Michael Zhu <michael.zhu@starfivetech.com>,
        Fu Wei <tekkamanninja@gmail.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Matteo Croce <mcroce@microsoft.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Huan Feng <huan.feng@starfivetech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:24 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 12:16, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 12:29 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 23:02, Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 22:29, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 9:46 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:

...

> > > > > > I such cases where you get conflicting PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_* settings I
> > > > > > don't see why it's better to do the rmw on the padctl register for the
> > > > > > first bias setting only to then change the bits again a few
> > > > > > microseconds later when the loop encounters the second bias setting.
> > > > > > After the loop is done the end result would still be just the last
> > > > > > bias setting.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could be bias X followed by something else followed by bias Y. You
> > > > > will write something else with bias Y. I admit I don't know this
> > > > > hardware and you and maintainers are supposed to decide what's better,
> > > > > but my guts are telling me that current algo is buggy.
> > > >
> > > > So there is only one padctl register pr. pin. I don't see why first
> > > > setting the bias bits to X, then setting some other bits, and then
> > > > setting the bias bits to Y would be different from just setting all
> > > > the bits in one go. Except for during that little microsecond window
> > > > during the loop that I actually think it's better to avoid.
> > >
> > > Maybe an example is in order. Suppose we get strong pull-up, drive
> > > strength 3 and pull-down config flags (the strong pull-up and pull
> > > down flags conflict) and the padctl value is 0x0c0 (pull-up, input and
> > > schmitt trigger enabled). With your solution of just altering the
> > > padctl bits immediately we'd call starfive_padctl_rmw 3 times in rapid
> > > succession like this:
> > >
> > > starfive_padctl_rmw(pin, 0x130, 0x100);
> > > starfive_padctl_rmw(pin, 0x007, 0x003);
> > > starfive_padctl_rmw(pin, 0x130, 0x010);
> > >
> > > ..and the end result would be 0x0d3, although the strong pull-up would
> > > be enabled for the microseconds between the 1st and 3nd call.
> > > As the code is now it'd just directly do
> > >
> > > starfive_padctl_rmw(pin, 0x137, 0x013)
> > >
> > > ..which again results in 0x0d3, only without the microsecond blink of
> > > the strong pull-up.
> >
> > You missed the point. Hardware on the other end may behave well
> > differently in these two cases.
>
> Right, but that can never be an intended behaviour. Which of the
> conflicting bias settings comes first and is blipped before the 2nd
> remains entirely depends on how the pinctrl framework parses the
> devicetree. I'd much rather have it cleanly go to just one of the
> states, which might be the wrong one, but the conflicting bias
> settings are wrong to begin with.

That's why I said that is up to you and maintainers and people who
know hardware better than me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko