On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Roland Stigge <sti...@antcom.de> wrote: > On 01/24/2013 01:02 PM, Stijn Devriendt wrote: >>> +static void lpc32xx_gpio_set_block_p3(struct gpio_chip *chip, >>> + unsigned long mask, >>> + unsigned long values) >>> +{ >>> + struct lpc32xx_gpio_chip *group = to_lpc32xx_gpio(chip); >>> + u32 set_bits = values & mask; >>> + u32 clr_bits = ~values & mask; >>> + >>> + /* States of GPIO 0-5 start at bit 25 */ >>> + set_bits <<= 25; >>> + clr_bits <<= 25; >>> + >>> + /* Note: On LPC32xx, GPOs can only be set at once or cleared at >>> once, >>> + * but not set and cleared at once >>> + */ >>> + if (set_bits) >>> + __raw_writel(set_bits, group->gpio_grp->outp_set); >>> + if (clr_bits) >>> + __raw_writel(clr_bits, group->gpio_grp->outp_clr); >>> +} >>> + >> >> In my patch, I go out of the way of this kind of thing for a simple reason: >> You may generate incorrect timing by doing this. > > You are right, certain things like synchronous on+off is not really > possible. > > However, the above at least supports switching on simulaneously, and > switching off simultaneously, which is an improvement in certain cases > (and this certain hardware part doesn't support more). Maybe this > certain driver behaviour can be documented even better than just in the > driver source. >
The question here is: do you expect a user of the block-GPIO API to go look into the base-driver code to see what will be supported? In my version of the patch this means: - do not provide a single GPIO-block that crosses multiple base-drivers - only provide gpio_block_get/set for GPIO drivers that support the complete operation in a single go. (for example, in the above example there would be no gpio_block_set() function) Perhaps the best approach is to make this explicit: Allow drivers to expose their capabilities wrt timing and allow users to request strict-timing or loose-timing. Loose-timing allows multiple gpio-drivers to be combined and allows drivers with separate set/clear, hi/lo registers to be used. Of course, for a first version you may as well leave it out. Perhaps the use-cases for cross-GPIO-driver blocks are not worth the extra complexity as of today? Regards, Stijn > If there is consensus that everything else in the patch set is settled, > and we just don't want to support behaviour like the above - well, we > can still drop it. > > Thanks for the note, > > Roland > -- 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/