[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 6/6] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support
    On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:58:06 -0700, Dong Aisheng <> wrote:
    > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Grant Likely <> wrote:
    > > On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:20 +0800, Dong Aisheng <> wrote:
    > >> From: Dong Aisheng <>
    > >>
    > >> This patch implements a standard common binding for pinctrl gpio ranges.
    > >> Each SoC can add gpio ranges through device tree by adding a gpio-maps property
    > >> under their pinctrl devices node with the format:
    > >> <&gpio $gpio-specifier $pin_offset $count>
    > >> while the gpio phandle and gpio-specifier are the standard approach
    > >> to represent a gpio in device tree.
    > >> Then we can cooperate it with the gpio xlate function to get the gpio number
    > >> from device tree to set up the gpio ranges map.
    > >>
    > >> Then the pinctrl driver can call pinctrl_dt_add_gpio_ranges(pctldev, node)
    > >> to parse and register the gpio ranges from device tree.
    > >>
    > >> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <>
    > >> ---
    > >> Personally i'm not very satisfied with current solution due to a few reasons:
    > >> 1) i can not user standard gpio api to get gpio number
    > >> 2) i need to reinvent a new api of_parse_phandles_with_args_ext which i'm not
    > >> sure if it can be accepted by DT maintainer.
    > >
    > > Right, as mentioned in my other email, doing it this way completely
    > > breaks the way the phandle-with-args pattern works.  That pattern
    > > depends on the phandle node to have a #-cells property telling it how
    > > many cells to process for the binding.  Adding additional data cells
    > > means the kernel is no longer able to parse multiple entries in the
    > > gpios property.
    > Hmm, it can still parse multiple entries in the gpios property except
    > that it adds two args although it's not related to gpio, but it is useful
    > for users for special case like pinctrl gpio ranges map.

    Really? How exactly does it know that each record is longer than
    #gpio-cells specifies (I'm speaking from the binding level; not having
    custom code that just "knows" the the records have additional

    I have no interest in creating exceptions to the phandle-with-args
    pattern since it adds yet more implicit knowledge about how to parse.
    For example, the common gpio code can no longer parse a gpios property
    that is padded out because the common code doesn't know anything about


    > > Hmmm.... I need more information about this gpio-maps property.  How
    > > is it arranged?  What kind of data is in it.  Can you give some
    > > specific examples of how hardware would be described with a gpio-maps
    > > property?
    > >
    > For exampe:
    > MX6Q_PAD_SD2_DAT2__GPIO_1_13 means MX6Q_PAD_SD2_DAT2 can be used as GPIO_1_13,
    > For reference gpio1,13, we usually do: xx-gpios = <gpio1 13 0> in device tree.
    > Here we want to create a pin map of gpio1,13 to MX6Q_PAD_SD2_DAT2 for
    > pinctrl gpio ranges map,
    > the format should be <GPIO_NUMBER PIN_ID NPINS>, then the pinctrl core
    > can automatically mux
    > the PIN_ID to gpio function by refer to this map.
    > For GPIO_NUMBER, we want to use the standard gpio dt represent way
    > since the gpio base may
    > be dynamically.
    > Assume MX6Q_PAD_SD2_DAT2 pin id is 1 and only one pin starting from it
    > can be used as gpio.
    > Then the gpio-maps for MX6Q_PAD_SD2_DAT2 can be:
    > gpio-maps = <gpio1 13 0 1 1>
    > We may have several pins can be used as gpio on mx6q.
    > Then the gpio-maps may becomes:
    > gpio-maps = <gpio1 13 0 1 1>,
    > <gpio1 14 0 5 1>,
    > <gpio2 0 0 20 1>,
    > ................
    > Since the format is a little different from the standard gpio
    > represent way, so i can not use the standard gpio
    > api to parse the gpio number. That's why i need to invent
    > of_parse_phandle_args_ext function for this special
    > format.
    > we still did not find any better way to do that.
    > Do you have any suggestion for this special case?

    Oh, I see.... Does this gpio-maps property sit beside a normal
    "gpios" property? Or is it in a completely separate node? If it sits
    beside a normal "gpios" property and lines up with the gpio properties
    there, then I would just make it a tuple for each gpio. Ie:

    gpios = <&gpio1 13 0>, <&gpio1 14 0>, <&gpio2 0 0>;
    gpio-pinmux = <1 1>, <5 1>, <20 1>;


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-30 09:21    [W:2.403 / U:0.208 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site