Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 May 2012 08:03:42 -0700 | From | Tony Lindgren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Add generic pinctrl-simple driver that supports omap2+ padconf |
| |
* Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> [120503 22:08]: > > In my mind in the driver we do not have to care how to list > register/unregister the group. We just need to be able to do this > > pinctrl_register_group(...) > > or > > pinctrl_unregistewr_group(...) > > On at91 we have this type of controller
Ah I see. Yeah makes sense. Also I think we should let the pinctrl core eventually manage the pins more too. Right now the pins are a static array in the driver, which makes things unnecessarily complex for the DT case. It would be nice to also have something like pinctrl_register/unregister_pin instead of requiring them all be registered while registering with the framework initially.
But all that can be improved later on once we get the binding down..
> one pin can have multiple function and each function can be on different pin > and we need to program and represent each of them one by one > > And each pin have different parameter > > so I was thinking to do like on gpio > > uart { > pin = < &pioA 12 {pararms} > > > }
Hmm I assume the "12" above the gpio number?
> and use macro as basicaly we are just this > > and this can be applied to tegra too as you will just refer the pin in this hw > pin block
I was thinking of adding gpio eventually as a separate attribute with something like the following. Here cam_d10 pin is used as gpio109:
cam_d10.gpio_109 { pinctrl-simple,cells = <0xfa 0x104>; /* OMAP_PIN_INPUT | OMAP_MUX_MODE4 */ gpio = <&gpio4 13 0>; /* gpio109 */ };
The reasoning for this is that as we may not care about the gpio number for all pins, it should be optional. Would that work for you?
Regards,
Tony
| |