Tisdagen den 13:e Juni 2013 klock 12:22 AM, skrev Heiko Stübner <he...@sntech.de>: > Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013, 16:55:12 schrieb James Hogan:
>> > +static struct pinconf_generic_dt_params dt_params[] = { >> > + { "bias-disable", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE, 0 }, >> > + { "bias-high-impedance", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_HIGH_IMPEDANCE, 0 }, >> > + { "bias-bus-hold", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_BUS_HOLD, 0 }, >> > + { "bias-pull-up", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP, 0 }, >> > + { "bias-pull-down", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN, 0 }, >> > + { "bias-pull-pin-default", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_PIN_DEFAULT, 0 }, >> > + { "drive-push-pull", PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_PUSH_PULL, 0 }, >> > + { "drive-open-drain", PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_OPEN_DRAIN, 0 }, >> > + { "drive-open-source", PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_OPEN_SOURCE, 0 }, >> > + { "drive-strength", PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH, 0 }, >> > + { "input-schmitt-enable", PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE, 1 }, >> > + { "input-schmitt-disable", PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE, 0 }, >> > + { "input-schmitt", PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT, 0 }, >> > + { "input-debounce", PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE, 0 }, >> > + { "power-source", PIN_CONFIG_POWER_SOURCE, 0 }, >> > + { "slew-rate", PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE, 0 }, >> > + { "low-power-mode", PIN_CONFIG_LOW_POWER_MODE, 0 }, >> > + { "output-low", PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT, 0, }, >> > + { "output-high", PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT, 1, }, >> >> shouldn't half of these default to 1 instead of 0? i.e. it's much nicer >> for the lone flag "bias-pull-up" to enable pull up rather than disable >> it (you even do this in the DT example in the bindings doc). > > on closer inspection it seems that you may be right. Heiko can you write a patch for this? You can hit both this code and the Rockchip driver at the same time for sure. Please check that the bindings are consistent. > The documentation to the > options in the pinconf-generic header even tells that for example the pull > options do have a 0 or 1 argument. Yeah. Well. Actually there has been plans to have the argument represent the number of Ohms on the pull-up, but we haven't seen any hardware that can actually select that. Maybe we should add that now? It will still be that != 0 implies enablement on platforms that does not support specifying the pull up/down resistance. > But I'm not sure if I understand everything correctly :-) ... isn't the bias- > disable the opposite of turning on a pull (like the sh-pfc/pinctrl does) and > same with switching from one pull type to another, i.e. activating a pull up > would turn off a pull down and on the whole making the argument redundant? This is true, and the plan is surely for the core to not allow or print a big fat warning if someone does something really stupid like activate pull up and pull down at the same time (unless s/he's constructing a heater radiator or something). Currently we don't make any sanity checks like that, BUT your generic parser could actually be extended to do that. Patches welcome ;-) > The only other candidate I could find was low-power-mode which really could > use a "1" as default. All the other pinconf options either use custom > arguments or ignore teir argument. A "1" for what? Not quite following.... 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/