[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] staging: iio: ad7606: replace range/range_available with corresponding scale
On 14/11/16 23:12, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <> wrote:
>> It's about figuring out the setting of a "GPIO" that can't be changed from
>> software.
>> Devices sometimes, instead of a configuration bus like I2C or SPI, use
>> simple input pins, that can either be set to high or low, to allow software
>> the state of the device. The GPIO API is typically used to configure these pins.
>> This works fine as long as the pin is connected to a GPIO. But sometimes the
>> system designer decides that a settings does not need to be configurable, in
>> this case the pin will be tied to logic low or high directly on the PCB
>> without any GPIO controller being involved.
>> Sometimes a driver wants to know how the pin is wired up so it can report to
>> userspace this part runs in the following mode and the mode can't be
>> changed. In a sense it is like a reverse GPIO hog.
>> Considering that this is a common usecase the question was how this can be
>> implemented in a driver independent way to avoid code duplication and
>> slightly different variations of what is effectively the same DT/ACPI binding.
>> E.g. lets say for a configurable pin you use
>> range-gpio = <&gpio ...>;
>> and for a static pin
>> range-gpio-fixed = <1>;
>> Or something similar.
> Aha I understand.
> Usually I feel we need not shoehorn stuff into GPIO because it is convenient,
> it might be best to leave the GPIO optional and if it is not there, look for
> a custom attribute that represents the "hogging" to 0/1. I think trying
> to extend GPIO bindings to cover it is overgeneralization, instead go
> for a local binding for this kind of devices.
> But mainly it is a question to the DT bindings maintainers.
That's a reasonable approach, but I'd certainly like to see a generic binding
to describe it. It's a pretty common situation.

Seems more likely we'll get a device tree maintainer response if we cc them ;)

So Mark, Rob and thoughts on this?


> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-19 13:33    [W:0.144 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site