lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 10/12] arm/tegra: Add device tree support to pinmux driver
    On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:07:16PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
    > Hi Stephen,
    >
    > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:54:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
    > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
    > > ---
    > > arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > > 1 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
    > >
    > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c
    > > index 05fa1a3..33246c2 100644
    > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c
    > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c
    > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
    > > #include <linux/errno.h>
    > > #include <linux/spinlock.h>
    > > #include <linux/io.h>
    > > +#include <linux/of.h>
    > > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
    > >
    > > #include <mach/iomap.h>
    > > @@ -147,6 +148,41 @@ static const char *func_name(enum tegra_mux_func func)
    > > return tegra_mux_names[func];
    > > }
    > >
    > [...]
    > >
    > > static const char *tri_name(unsigned long val)
    > > {
    > > @@ -666,15 +702,94 @@ void tegra_pinmux_config_pullupdown_table(const struct tegra_pingroup_config *co
    > > }
    > > }
    > >
    > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
    > > +static void __init tegra_pinmux_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev)
    > > +{
    > > + int pg;
    > > +
    > > + for (pg = 0; pg < TEGRA_MAX_PINGROUP; pg++) {
    > > + const char *pg_name = pingroup_name(pg);
    > > + struct tegra_pingroup_config config;
    > > + struct device_node *pg_node;
    > > + int ret;
    > > + const char *s;
    > > +
    > > + pg_node = of_find_child_node_by_name(pdev->dev.of_node,
    > > + pg_name);
    > > + if (pg_node == NULL)
    > > + continue;
    > > +
    > > + config.pingroup = pg;
    > > +
    > > + ret = of_property_read_string(pg_node, "nvidia,function", &s);
    > > + if (ret < 0) {
    > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
    > > + "%s: Missing property nvidia,function\n",
    > > + pg_name);
    > > + continue;
    > > + }
    > > + ret = func_enum(s, &config.func);
    > > + if (ret < 0) {
    > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
    > > + "%s: Invalid nvidia,function value %s\n",
    > > + pg_name, s);
    > > + continue;
    > > + }
    > > +
    > > + ret = of_property_read_string(pg_node, "nvidia,pull", &s);
    > > + if (ret >= 0) {
    > > + if (!strcmp(s, "up"))
    > > + config.pupd = TEGRA_PUPD_PULL_UP;
    > > + else if (!strcmp(s, "down"))
    > > + config.pupd = TEGRA_PUPD_PULL_DOWN;
    > > + else if (!strcmp(s, "normal"))
    > > + config.pupd = TEGRA_PUPD_NORMAL;
    > > + else {
    > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
    > > + "%s: Invalid nvidia,pull value %s\n",
    > > + pg_name, s);
    > > + continue;
    > > + }
    > > + } else
    > > + config.pupd = TEGRA_PUPD_NORMAL;
    > > +
    > > + if (of_find_property(pg_node, "nvidia,tristate", NULL))
    > > + config.tristate = TEGRA_TRI_TRISTATE;
    > > + else
    > > + config.tristate = TEGRA_TRI_NORMAL;
    > > +
    > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: func %d (%s) pull %d tri %d\n",
    > > + pg_name, config.func, func_name(config.func),
    > > + config.pupd, config.tristate);
    > > +
    > > + tegra_pinmux_config_pingroup(&config);
    > > +
    > > + of_node_put(pg_node);
    > > + }
    > > +}
    >
    > I need to implement DT muxing configuration for my platform, and I believe
    > that what you have here would work fine for me too, and to avoid duplicating
    > the same thing, I wonder if this could be a little more generic.
    >
    > So if the platform specific pinmux driver called the pinmux parser with a
    > callback for a pingroup configuration function then this wouldn't need the
    > nvidia specific properties. I'd envisage the setup callback to be something
    > like:
    >
    > int pingroup_configure(const char *name, unsigned long flags);

    and it if this took the device_node too then the platform specific bits could
    handle more esoteric properties if required. I'll have a go at prototyping
    this tomorrow unless there are any obvious reasons that this is a stupid idea!

    Jamie


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-08-15 22:39    [W:3.467 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site