Messages in this thread | | | From | Barry Song <> | Date | Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:25:43 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] GPIOLIB: add generic gpio_set_pull API |
| |
Hi Linus, it seems people still use self-defined structure and APIs to set GPIO pull, for example:
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-nomadik.c:
48 /* Pull up/down values */ 49 enum nmk_gpio_pull { 50 NMK_GPIO_PULL_NONE, 51 NMK_GPIO_PULL_UP, 52 NMK_GPIO_PULL_DOWN, 53 };
int nmk_gpio_set_pull(int gpio, enum nmk_gpio_pull pull)
or actually you mean use "pin_config_get" and "pin_config_set" with self-defined configuration to set pull?
but i think at least the macros of GPIO_PULL_NONE, GPIO_PULL_UP and GPIO_PULL_DOWN should be standardized.
2011/8/9 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@codeaurora.org> > wrote: > > > If we add this API - the remaining gpio controls like drive strength and > > function select could also be added, > > I agree. > > > which eats into the pinmux domain. > > That's not so bad, since the pinctrl/pinmux subsystem is just a prototype > people may want to wrap up their drivers into gpio_chip/gpiolib as > they stand today to atleast get some isolation. Later on they can > refactor and migrate to a pinctrl/pinmux subsystem. > > The latter will take some time to provide anyway, since I have been > asked to restructure it so as not to use a global pin number space. > > > Linus W. had a patch earlier which added an API for a gpio config to be > > specified through gpiolib. " gpio: add a custom configuration mechanism > > to > > gpiolib" which is sort of an extensible model of this API. > > Yes I think I have already suggested a bunch of ways to skin this > cat but somehow none of them seem to win general approval. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
-barry
| |