Hi James,
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 15:36:59 James Hogan wrote:
> On 11/06/13 23:03, 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").
>
> Thanks for this patch. I haven't tested it (yet), but have a few
> comments below.
>
> > 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
>
> this is set as a flag, so I think it should be described like tristate,
> "A boolean, ... when set."? Same for pull-up and pull-down (see comment
> below).
Can't the value be used to control schmitt trigger parameters (same as for the
pull-up and pull-down values, as explained below) ?
> <snip>
>
> > + { "pull-up", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP, false },
> > + { "pull-down", PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN, false },
>
> pinconf-generic.h says "If the argument is != 0 pull-up is enabled, if
> it is 0, pull-up is disabled", so I think these should be flags unless
> it's changed there first.
== 0 for disabled and != 0 for enabled doesn't mean that all != 0 values are
equivalent. As I read it drivers can use the value to control the pull-up/down
strength without violating the documentation.
> Any chance of adding the new "bus-hold" entry too
> (PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_BUS_HOLD, and flag=true I suppose)? see
> aa69352252a7a952e6e77734cb87135143a377d2 in LinuxW's pinctrl for-next
> branch.
Another generic pinconf DT bindings proposal has been submitted and applied to
the devel branch in Linus' pinctrl tree. It includes support for
PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_BUS_HOLD. Linus asked me to review the patch, so this one will
likely be dropped or at least integrated into the other one.
> <snip>
>
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pinconf_generic_parse_params);
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf.h b/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf.h
> > index 92c7267..eb8550b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf.h
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinconf.h
> > @@ -90,6 +90,23 @@ static inline void pinconf_init_device_debugfs(struct
> > dentry *devroot,>
> > * pin config.
> > */
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_PINCONF)
> > +
> > +int pinconf_generic_parse_params(struct device *dev, struct device_node
> > *np, + unsigned long **cfgs);
> > +
> > +#else
> > +
> > +static inline int pinconf_generic_parse_params(struct device *dev,
> > + struct device_node *np,
> > + unsigned long **cfgs)
> > +{
> > + *cfgs = NULL;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Should this ever be necessary? Sounds like if the driver wanted to use
> this it should already have selected GENERIC_PINCONF anyway.
You're right.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
