From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752252AbdFOLLd (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:11:33 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:51255 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751620AbdFOLLb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:11:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:11:24 +0200 From: jmondi To: Dong Aisheng 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] pinctrl: generic: Add bi-directional and output-enable Message-ID: <20170615111124.GD22030@w540> References: <20170523183735.GC13664@w540> <20170529104229.GB21347@w540> <20170609075028.GE15739@w540> <20170612094424.GG15739@w540> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dong, On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 02:25:08PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:44 PM, jmondi wrote: > > 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. Yes it is, and I actually like your proposal, I was just trying to make sure I was not confusing the property semantic with its real-world effect. If no one as different opinions on this, I can send a patch later to add output-enable only, or since you have almost done it down here you can do the same resusing what you have proposed below. > > 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. I would not mention the "input buffer" here, as enabling input implies enabling the buffer if you want to read values from there. Actually I guess there may be platforms where buffer enabling may be implicit, so I would leave this out and let drivers handle it internally. > * @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