From: swarren@wwwdotorg•org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: reserve pins when states are activated
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:30:05 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5085ACCD.3040203@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZazjMoSzkr5t15-GeCnQKCJDsZyvT=KVMyw5XhjDybGQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/22/2012 02:21 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide•com> wrote:
>> [Me]
>>> Instead: let use reserve the pins when the state is activated
>>> and drop them when the state is disabled, i.e. when we move to
>>> another state. This way different devices/functions can use the
>>> same pins at different times.
>>
>> Hmm doesn't this mean that we are now doing lots of extra
>> reserving and dropping of pins? Performance is important from
>> latency point of view for cases where we need to remux pins
>> constantly runtime PM.
>
> It is only done in case the pinmux state is switched in runtime
> suspend/resume, so it's e.g. possible to just alter the pin config.
>
> But in general what you say is true.
>
> We used to to the same thing by having drivers call
> pinctrl_get()/pinctrl_put() in this case instead, but that went
> away with the introduction of states, so we cannot encode
> different pin sets with say
> pinctrl_get(dev, "foo")/pinctrl_get(dev, "bar")
> anymore since there is only one pinctrl handle per device,
> but multiple states.
>
> 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.
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-22 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-19 13:05 [PATCH v2] pinctrl: reserve pins when states are activated Linus Walleij
2012-10-19 14:51 ` Jean-Nicolas GRAUX
2012-10-19 16:18 ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-19 18:10 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-22 8:21 ` Linus Walleij
2012-10-22 19:07 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-23 8:58 ` Linus Walleij
2012-10-22 20:30 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-10-23 9:31 ` Linus Walleij
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5085ACCD.3040203@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox