Hi Grant, Thanks for the review.
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 13:48:33 Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:03:57 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Document DT properties for the generic pinctrl parameters and add a > > parser function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > > <laurent.pinchart+rene...@ideasonboard.com> > > --- > > > > .../bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt | 29 +++++++ > > drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/pinctrl/pinconf.h | 17 ++++ > > 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+) > > > > I've successfully tested this patch (or more accurately only the pull-up > > and pull-down properties) with the Renesas sh-pfc pinctrl device driver. > > I will resent the sh-pfc DT bindings patch series rebased on the generic > > pinconf bindings. > > > > Not all generic pinconf properties are currently implemented, but I don't > > think that should be a showstopper. We can add them later as needed. > > > > The code is based on both the sh-pfc pinconf DT parser and James Hogan's > > tz1090 DT parser ("[PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl-tz1090: add TZ1090 pinctrl > > driver"). > > > > diff --git > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt index > > c95ea82..e499ff0 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt > > @@ -126,3 +126,32 @@ device; they may be grandchildren, for example. > > Whether this is legal, and> > > whether there is any interaction between the child and intermediate > > parent nodes, is again defined entirely by the binding for the individual > > pin controller device. > > > > + > > +== Generic pinconf parameters == > > + > > +Pin configuration parameters are expressed by DT properties in the pin > > +controller device state nodes and child nodes. For devices that use the > > generic +pinconf parameters the following properties are defined. > > + > > +- tristate: A boolean, put the pin into high impedance state when set. > > + > > +- pull-up: An integer representing the pull-up strength. 0 disables the > > pull-up, + non-zero values enable it. > > + > > +- pull-down: An integer representing the pull-down strength. 0 disables > > the + pull-down, non-zero values enables it. > > + > > +- schmitt: An integer, enable or disable Schmitt trigger mode for the > > pins. + Valid values are > > + 0: Schmitt trigger disabled (no hysteresis) > > + 1: Schmitt trigger enabled > > + > > +- slew-rate: An integer controlling the pin slew rate. Values are device- > > + dependent. > > + > > +- drive-strength: An integer representing the drive strength of pins in > > mA. + Valid values are device-dependent. > > + > > +The pinctrl device DT bindings documentation must list the properties > > that > > +apply to the device, and define the valid range for all device-dependent > > +values. > > I don't see any problem with the above properties, but I would like to > see an example. How verbose will a pinctrl node using the generic > properties tend to be? Here's a real-life example &pfc { pinctrl-0 = <&scifa4_pins>; pinctrl-names = "default"; mmcif_pins: mmcif { mux { renesas,groups = "mmc0_data8_0", "mmc0_ctrl_0"; renesas,function = "mmc0"; }; cfg { renesas,groups = "mmc0_data8_0"; renesas,pins = "PORT279"; bias-pull-up = <1>; }; }; scifa4_pins: scifa4 { renesas,groups = "scifa4_data", "scifa4_ctrl"; renesas,function = "scifa4"; }; }; The mux node selects function mmc0 on two pin groups, and the cfg node activates pull-ups on one pin group and one particular pin. > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c > > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c index 2ad5a8d..bd0e41d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > > > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/init.h> > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > +#include <linux/of.h> > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/debugfs.h> > > #include <linux/seq_file.h> > > > > @@ -135,3 +136,96 @@ void pinconf_generic_dump_config(struct pinctrl_dev > > *pctldev,> > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pinconf_generic_dump_config); > > #endif > > > > + > > +struct pinconf_generic_param { > > + const char *property; > > + enum pin_config_param param; > > + bool flag; > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct pinconf_generic_param pinconf_generic_params[] = { > > + { "tristate", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_HIGH_IMPEDANCE, true }, > > + { "pull-up", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP, false }, > > + { "pull-down", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN, false }, > > + { "schmitt", PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE, true }, > > + { "slew-rate", PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE, false }, > > + { "drive-strength", PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH, false }, > > +}; > > + > > +static int pinconf_generic_add_config(unsigned long **configs, > > + unsigned int *num_configs, > > + unsigned long config) > > +{ > > + unsigned int count = *num_configs + 1; > > + unsigned long *cfgs; > > + > > + cfgs = krealloc(*configs, sizeof(*cfgs) * count, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (cfgs == NULL) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + cfgs[count - 1] = config; > > + > > + *configs = cfgs; > > + *num_configs = count; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > Hmmm. We really need a better method of parsing multiple properties. > I've been toying around with a few ideas, but haven't been able to draft > something I'm happy with yeat. > > Regardless, the code in this patch looks fine to me. Thanks. As other generic pinconf DT bindings proposals have been submitted I will resent this patch set with pinconf support stripped out to make sure it gets to v3.11 and will then add pinconf back in follow-up patches for v3.11 or v3.12, depending on when we can agree on generic pinconf bindings. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss