On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 10/22/2012 02:21 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> If this turns out to be a severe performance bottleneck, I >> suggest to add some additional constraint API, like >> pinctrl_set_pinmux_homegeneous_pinsets(true) that will >> at runtime select whether the pin allocation is done when >> getting the pinctrl handle instead. > > That API sounds like something system-wide, which seems like it would be > rather presumptuous (CPU/SoC support code couldn't execute it, since > that would presume a facet of all board designs that could change in the > future). Even a driver shouldn't be assuming this; it can't know what > boards it gets used in ahead of time. Well, yeah. It should rather be part of the pinctrl descriptor then, so it becomes a per-controller runpath simplification. > Instead, it seems like the map registration code could easily look at > all states defined for a device, and determine if the set of pins/groups > used by those states was identical, and switch between up-front or > dynamic registration as needed by the specific map entries. That kind of constraint-resolution in the kernel scares me, soon we will have a prolog runtime ... (but hm maybe that is not such a bad idea considering some other constraint things I've seen around) Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/