lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pinmux bindings proposal
* Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> [120118 11:29]:
> Tony Lindgren wrote at Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:13 AM:
>
> I'd prefer not to do that for my platforms, for the reason Shawn points
> out in his reply to yours.
>
> However, I believe the bindings I proposed are flexible enough to allow
> you to do exactly this for your platforms without requiring that everyone
> do it.

Well I can easily use one phandle per pinmux controller instance
instead of one phandle per pin, so let's plan on doing that.

> Recall my proposal was:

Yes I think that's pretty close to what I'm using, just few
minor comments below.

> pmx_sdhci_standby: pinctrl@0 {
> /* Format is <&pmx_controller_phandle muxable_entity_id
> * selected_function>.
> */
> mux =
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_MUX_1>
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_MUX_1>;

Assuming this is describing the pins a driver is using, how
about calling it pins?

That's because you might want to do all the muxing in a
bootloader, but still need to tell how many pins you're using
for MMC on a device. So it actually has a wider meaning than just
mux.

Also, we need to standardize on some name to use for parsing pins
using of_parse_phandle_with_args, and I suggested #pin-args.

> config =
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_SLEW_RATE 4>
> <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_SLEW_RATE 8>;
> };

Here I don't quite understand how config is different from pins/mux
above? It seems to set the driver/pull stuff, but why don't you
just make #pin-args larger and have a wider pin array?

Something like:

pins =
<&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_MUX_1 TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1
&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_MUX_1 TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>;

and in the parent set #pin-args to 3.

> (Note that I think we've agreed to remove the first cell above, &tegra_pmx,
> now by requiring such nodes exist as children of the pin controller.)

Sorry I don't quite follow, can you please maybe repost a complete
.dts entry for your pin controller and one driver entry?

> My assertion is that the common pinmux bindings define that the
> Interpretation of muxable_entity_id is left up to the binding of the
> specific pin controller. Hence, I can says "it's an integer, and here
> is the list of valid values and what they mean", and you can say "it's
> a phandle, which must refer to one of the per-pin nodes defined by the
> pin controller".
>
> Does that work for you?

Yes it does, other than the comments above.

Regards,

Tony


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-19 11:59    [W:0.186 / U:3.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site