From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750942AbdE2Ips (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2017 04:45:48 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:38183 "EHLO mail-it0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787AbdE2Ipq (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2017 04:45:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170523183735.GC13664@w540> References: <20170508160120.GB25206@w540> <20170508172516.GC25206@w540> <20170523183735.GC13664@w540> From: Linus Walleij Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:45:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] pinctrl: generic: Add bi-directional and output-enable To: jmondi Cc: Dong Aisheng , Andy Shevchenko , Chris Brandt , Jacopo Mondi , 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" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:37 PM, jmondi wrote: >> I did not follow too much. >> But it seems IMX7ULP/Vybrid to be also a fan of generic >> output-enable/input-enable >> property. >> >> See: >> Figure 5-2. GPIO PAD in Page 241 >> http://www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/reference-manuals/VFXXXRM.pdf >> >> It has separate register bits to control input buffer enable and >> output buffer enable >> and we need set it property for GPIO function. > > As it seems we have another user for 'output-enable' here, what if we just > add that one to the generic bindings properties list, and we keep > 'bi-directional' (which seems to be the most debated property we have > added) out of generic properties? > > We can handle 'bi-directional' pins with static tables in our pin > controller driver and not have it anywhere in DT. This sounds like a viable approach. I just want to know if "output-enable" is the right name? "output-buffer-enable"? > I see commit 42d5a11200d0[1] has not been reverted yet as Andy asked > in some previous email. I'm just overloaded. I sent that revert to Torvalds today. > I can send another version of that patch with > only 'output-enable' if you wish. That's what we want. > Once we reach consesus, I can then send v6 of our pin controller driver > based on that. OK sounds like a plan. Sorry for the mess, I'm just trying to get this right :/ Yours, Linus Walleij