Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: Add sm8250 lpass lpi pinctrl driver | From | Srinivas Kandagatla <> | Date | Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:18:06 +0000 |
| |
On 01/12/2020 17:28, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 01 Dec 04:01 CST 2020, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > >> Many thanks for review Bjorn, >> >> >> On 01/12/2020 00:47, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Mon 16 Nov 08:34 CST 2020, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >>> >>>> Add initial pinctrl driver to support pin configuration for >>>> LPASS (Low Power Audio SubSystem) LPI (Low Power Island) pinctrl >>>> on SM8250. >>>> >>>> This IP is an additional pin control block for Audio Pins on top the >>>> existing SoC Top level pin-controller. >>>> Hardware setup looks like: >>>> >>>> TLMM GPIO[146 - 159] --> LPASS LPI GPIO [0 - 13] >>>> >>> >>> Iiuc the LPI TLMM block is just "another pinmux/pinconf block" found in >>> these SoCs, with the additional magic that the 14 pads are muxed with >>> some of the TLMM pins - to allow the system integrator to choose how >>> many pins the LPI should have access to. >>> >>> I also believe this is what the "egpio" bit in the TLMM registers are >>> used for (i.e. egpio = route to LPI, egpio = 1 route to TLMM), so we >>> should need to add support for toggling this bit in the TLMM as well >>> (which I think we should do as a pinconf in the pinctrl-msm). >> >> Yes, we should add egpio function to these pins in main TLMM pinctrl! >> > > I was thinking about abusing the pinconf system, but reading you > sentence makes me feel that expressing it as a "function" and adding a > special case handling in msm_pinmux_set_mux() would actually make things > much cleaner to the outside. > > i.e. we would then end up with something in DT like: > > pin-is-normal-tlmm-pin { > pins = "gpio146"; > function = "gpio"; > }; > > and > > pin-routed-to-lpi-pin { > pins = "gpio146"; > function = "egpio"; > };
That is what I was thinking of.
> > Only "drawback" I can see is that we're inverting the chip's meaning of > "egpio" (i.e. active means route-to-tlmm in the hardware). > At somepoint we need to start defining what egpio really means w.r.t pinctrl setup!
>>> >>>> This pin controller has some similarities compared to Top level >>>> msm SoC Pin controller like 'each pin belongs to a single group' >>>> and so on. However this one is intended to control only audio >>>> pins in particular, which can not be configured/touched by the >>>> Top level SoC pin controller except setting them as gpios. > [..] >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c > [..] >>>> + LPI_MUX_qua_mi2s_sclk, >>>> + LPI_MUX_swr_tx_data1, >>> >>> As there's no single pin that can be both data1 and data2 I think you >>> should have a single group for swr_tx_data and use this function for >>> both swr_tx_data pins. Or perhaps even just have one for swr or swr_tx. >>> >>> (This is nice when you're writing DT later on) >> >> I did think about this, but we have a rx_data2 pin in different function >> compared to other rx data pins. >> >> The reason to keep it as it is : >> 1> as this will bring in an additional complexity to the code > > For each pin lpi_gpio_set_mux() will be invoked and you'd be searching > for the index (i) among that pins .funcs. So it doesn't matter that > looking up a particular function results in different register values > for different pins, it's already dealt with. > >> 2> we have these represented exactly as what hw data sheet mentions it! >> > > That is true, but the result is that you have to write 2 states in the > DT to get your 2 pins to switch to the particular function. By grouping > them you could do: > > data-pins { > pins = "gpio1", "gpio2"; > function = "swr_tx_data"; > }; > > > We do this quite extensively for the TLMM (pinctrl-msm) because it > results in cleaner DT.
These are now changed as requested!
> >>> >>>> + LPI_MUX_qua_mi2s_ws, > [..] >>>> +static struct lpi_pinctrl_variant_data sm8250_lpi_data = { >>>> + .tlmm_reg_offset = 0x1000, >>> >>> Do we have any platform in sight where this is not 0x1000? Could we just >>> make a define out of it? >> Am not 100% sure ATM, But I wanted to keep this flexible as these offsets in >> downstream were part of device tree for some reason, so having offset here >> for particular compatible made more sense for me! >> > > Downtream does indeed favor "flexible" code. I tend to prefer a #define > until we actually need the flexibility...
Done!
--srini > > Regards, > Bjorn >
| |