Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751817Ab1BQIG5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:06:57 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:48891 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170Ab1BQIGy (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:06:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:06:43 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Peter Tyser Cc: Alan Cox , Grant Likely , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alek Du , Samuel Ortiz , David Brownell , Eric Miao , Mark Brown , Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpiolib: Add ability to get GPIO pin direction Message-ID: <20110217080643.GI22310@pengutronix.de> References: <1294343654-20354-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <1297698493.965.5475.camel@petert> <20110214170812.6f54a4bb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20110214193502.101759d0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1297726502.965.6921.camel@petert> <20110215114210.1f1a8470@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1297789548.965.10101.camel@petert> <20110215171915.384223b6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1297792151.965.10259.camel@petert> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1297792151.965.10259.camel@petert> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3540 Lines: 76 On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:49:11AM -0600, Peter Tyser wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 17:19 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > + if (chip->get_direction) { > > > + /* chip->get_direction may sleep */ > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags); > > > + if (chip->get_direction(chip, gpio - chip->base) > 0) > > > + set_bit(FLAG_IS_OUT, &desc->flags); > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags); > > > + } else { > > > + set_bit(FLAG_IS_UNKNOWN, &desc->flags); > > > + } > > > > > > This would have the side effect of having nearly all GPIO drivers > > > default to an "unknown" direction until they implement the new > > > get_direction() function, which I think is an improvement over the > > > > This doesn't solve anything. If the hardware supports alt_func state then > > it now can't implement get_direction, so that's useless. > > I don't follow. If a pin is configured for some alternate function, > then requesting it for GPIO should fail, thus it doesn't matter if it > implements get_direction()? Since we can't easily toggle back and forth > between GPIO and alt_func, I'd think we shouldn't be able to request > alt_func pins for GPIO - they should be off-limits to the GPIO subsystem > altogether. hmm, I'm not sure. Letting gpio_request fail looks good from the POV of an uninformed driver. But for some platform code, it seems more natural to do: gpio_request(mygpio); myplatform_iomux_setup(pad_for_altfunc); do_something_special(); /* * the controler is unable to reset some component, so use * bitbanging for that */ myplatform_iomux_setup(pad_for_gpio); gpio_direction_output(mygpio, 0); usleep(100); myplatform_iomux_setup(pad_for_altfunc); ... instead of only being able to gpio_request after myplatform_iomux_setup(pad_for_gpio). (And so in theory take that risk that another process grabs the gpio between mux-for-gpio and gpio_request.) So if you ask me, it's gpio_direction_{in,out}put that should fail, not gpio_request. But I'm not that sure about it to already know now to keep this opinion until after this discussion is over. > My understanding is that currently if some platform wants to toggle pins > back and forth between alt_func and GPIO, it needs to handle that logic > itself. If platform code is handling that toggling, I'd think the GPIO > code should not touch pins configured as alt_func. If the platform is > no longer using them as alt_func, then it should poke the appropriate > registers to make them not alt_func so that they can then be used by the > GPIO subsystem. .. or at least make the usage via the gpio subsystem fail using it. OTOH on arm/plat-mxc (at least the newer chips) there is no easy mapping between pads and gpios. So currently we do: gpio_request and gpio_direction_{in,out}put yield 0, but it depends on the pin muxing if the gpio is "visible" anywhere. I don't like that much, but I agree that it's not worth to setup a huge table to map gpios to pads and back just to return -ESOMETHING in the gpio functions. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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/