From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dong Aisheng Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] pinctrl: generic: Add bi-directional and output-enable Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 14:25:08 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20170508172516.GC25206@w540> <20170523183735.GC13664@w540> <20170529104229.GB21347@w540> <20170609075028.GE15739@w540> <20170612094424.GG15739@w540> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170612094424.GG15739@w540> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: jmondi Cc: Linus Walleij , Andy Shevchenko , Jacopo Mondi , Chris Brandt , Geert Uytterhoeven , Laurent Pinchart , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Russell King - ARM Linux , Linux-Renesas , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , devicetree , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dong Aisheng List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:44 PM, jmondi wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:45:49PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:50 AM, jmondi wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:26:57PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> >> >> > I see three options here: >> >> > >> >> > 1) Add "output-buffer-enable" and "input-buffer-enable" >> >> > we end up with >> >> > "output-high" >> >> > "output-low" >> >> > "input-enable" >> >> > "output-buffer-enable" >> >> > "input-buffer-enable" >> >> > >> >> > 2) Add "output-buffer-enable" only >> >> > we end up with >> >> > "output-high" >> >> > "output-low" >> >> > "input-enable" >> >> > "output-buffer-enable" >> >> > >> >> > Binding may be confusing as in one case we use "output-buffer-enable" >> >> > while in the other "input-enable" >> >> > >> >> > 3) Add "output-enable" only >> >> > "output-high" >> >> > "output-low" >> >> > "input-enable" >> >> > "output-enable" >> >> > >> >> > As you, I don't like "output-enable" that much but it pairs better with >> >> > "input-enable". >> >> > >> >> > I'll let you and DT people decide on this, as it's really an ABI definition >> >> > problem and you have better judgment there. >> >> > >> >> >> >> What's the final decision of this? >> > >> > I admit a was buying a bit of time and post-poned the gentle ping for >> > any final word on this. But since you're asking I'll second your >> > question :) >> >> I suspect it is time to quote >> Documentation/process/management-style.rst >> (Torvalds): >> >> 1) Decisions >> >> Everybody thinks managers make decisions, and that decision-making is >> important. The bigger and more painful the decision, the bigger the >> manager must be to make it. That's very deep and obvious, but it's not >> actually true. >> >> The name of the game is to **avoid** having to make a decision. In >> particular, if somebody tells you "choose (a) or (b), we really need you >> to decide on this", you're in trouble as a manager. The people you >> manage had better know the details better than you, so if they come to >> you for a technical decision, you're screwed. You're clearly not >> competent to make that decision for them. >> >> (It goes on, it's the best part of the entire Documentation/* dir in my >> opinion, please take the time to read it in full.) >> >> So: what do you guys, using this feature, and Andy, who raised serious >> concerns, think is the right binding? That is what *I* need to know. > > Fair enough :) > > I'll try to keep this short: I don't like "output-enable", and at the > same time I don't think "output-high" and "output-low" fit well for > this purpose, as they electrically means something different from what > our (and IMX) use case is: enabling/disabling input/output > buffers internal to pin controller/gpio block HW and not driving a value > there. > > This seems clear to me from the "GPIO mode pitfalls" section of > pinctrl.txt documentation examples and from the fact that generic bindings > did not expose an "output" flag because if you drive an output line, you > reasonably either drive it high or low. > > Unfortunately I cannot convince myself that the same reasons apply > to the input use case. Enabling input on a pin implies the pinctrl/gpio driver > has to enable any input buffer required to use that pin as a properly > working input line, and enabling an input buffer implies being able to sense > the line value from there, so I don't see that much use for "input-buffer-enable" > alone. > > So, even if bindings could look a bit weird as there won't be a direct > matching between properties names used to enable input/output buffers, > my vote is to add "output-buffer-enable" only, and keep using the > already there "input-enable" properties for the input use case. > Yes, it may be a bit weird. I'm not pad internal details expert and can't tell much difference between output-enable and output-buffer-enable. I just feel a bit confuse if only using output-buffer-enable. If enable both input and output, it becomes: pinctrl_xxx: gpios_xxx_grp { pins = < ULP1_PAD_PTD0__PTD0 >; input-enable; output-buffer-enable; bias-pull-up; }; How about still use output-enable in pairs to input-enable but explain more in comments? Aslo update 'input-enable' comment to 'enable input buffer'. e.g. diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c index 720a19f..96c83a4 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ static const struct pinconf_generic_params dt_params[] = { { "input-schmitt-enable", PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE, 1 }, { "low-power-disable", PIN_CONFIG_LOW_POWER_MODE, 0 }, { "low-power-enable", PIN_CONFIG_LOW_POWER_MODE, 1 }, + { "output-enable", PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT_ENABLE, 1 }, { "output-high", PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT, 1, }, { "output-low", PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT, 0, }, { "power-source", PIN_CONFIG_POWER_SOURCE, 0 }, diff --git a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h index 7620eb1..d30f4fe 100644 --- a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h +++ b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h @@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ * which means it will wait for signals to settle when reading inputs. The * argument gives the debounce time in usecs. Setting the * argument to zero turns debouncing off. - * @PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_ENABLE: enable the pin's input. Note that this does not - * affect the pin's ability to drive output. 1 enables input, 0 disables - * input. + * @PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_ENABLE: enable the pin's input buffer. Note that this does + * not affect the pin's ability to drive output. + * 1 enables input, 0 disables input. * @PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT: this will configure an input pin to run in * schmitt-trigger mode. If the schmitt-trigger has adjustable hysteresis, * the threshold value is given on a custom format as argument when @@ -73,6 +73,9 @@ * operation, if several modes of operation are supported these can be * passed in the argument on a custom form, else just use argument 1 * to indicate low power mode, argument 0 turns low power mode off. + * @PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT_ENABLE: only enable the pin's output buffer, not driving + * a value. + * 1 enables output buffer, 0 disables output buffer. * @PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT: this will configure the pin as an output. Use argument * 1 to indicate high level, argument 0 to indicate low level. (Please * see Documentation/pinctrl.txt, section "GPIO mode pitfalls" for a Or invent both input-buffer-enable and output-buffer-enable and deprecated input-enable? Andy, how about your comments? Regards Dong Aisheng > Thanks > j > >> >> Yours, >> Linus Walleij