Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property
Hi Linus, On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:23:57PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam > wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote: > > >> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of > >> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification > >> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the > >> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this > >> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]", > >> > >> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when > >> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An > >> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do > >> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in > >> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names) > >> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea? > >> > > > > Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea! > > > > Linus: Do you have any suggestion here? > > Go for this. > Thanks! > Generally ask the question: what does the user need? > > In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) MRAA :) > should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what > board it is but know it has a 96board connector. > I have sent out v2, incorporating the review comments from Todor. Can you please review it? Thanks, Mani > Yours, > Linus Walleij
Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote: >> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of >> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification >> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the >> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this >> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]", >> >> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when >> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An >> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do >> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in >> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names) >> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea? >> > > Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea! > > Linus: Do you have any suggestion here? Go for this. Generally ask the question: what does the user need? In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?) should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what board it is but know it has a 96board connector. Yours, Linus Walleij
Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property
Hi Todor,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote:
> Hi Mani,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 14.04.2018 06:18, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Add gpio-line-names property for Dragonboard820c based on APQ8096 SoC.
> > There are 4 gpio-controllers present on this board, including the
> > APQ8096 SoC, PM8994 (GPIO and MPP) and PMI8994 (GPIO).
> >
> > Lines names are derived from 96Boards CE Specification 1.0, Appendix
> > "Expansion Connector Signal Description". Line names for PMI8994 MPP
> > pins are not added due to the absence of the gpio-controller support.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi | 240
> > +++
> > 1 file changed, 240 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> > index 1c8f1b86472d..1c1deef031c6 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> > @@ -19,6 +19,34 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> >
> > +/*
> > + * GPIO name legend: proper name = the GPIO line is used as GPIO
> > + * NC = not connected (pin out but not routed from the chip to
> > + * anything the board)
> > + * "[PER]" = pin is muxed for [peripheral] (not GPIO)
> > + * LSEC= Low Speed External Connector
> > + * HSEC= High Speed External Connector
> > + * P HSEC = Primary High Speed External Connector
> > + * S HSEC = Secondary High Speed External Connector
> > + * J14 = Camera Connector
> > + * TP = Test Points
> > + *
> > + * Line names are taken from the schematic "DragonBoard 820c",
> > + * drawing no: LM25-P2751-1
> > + *
> > + * For the lines routed to the external connectors the
> > + * lines are named after the 96Boards CE Specification 1.0,
> > + * Appendix "Expansion Connector Signal Description".
> > + *
> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of
> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification
> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the
> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this
> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]",
>
> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when
> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An
> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do
> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in
> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names)
> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea?
>
Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea!
Linus: Do you have any suggestion here?
> > + * the GPIO named lines "GPIO-A" thru "GPIO-L" are the only
> > + * ones actually used for GPIO.
> > + */
> > +
> > / {
> > aliases {
> > serial0 = &blsp2_uart1;
> > @@ -90,6 +118,218 @@
> > status = "okay";
> > };
> >
> > + pinctrl@101 {
> > + gpio-line-names =
> > + "[SPI0_DOUT]", /* GPIO_0, LSEC pin 14 */
> > + "[SPI0_DIN]", /* GPIO_1, LSEC pin 10 */
> > + "[SPI0_CS]", /* GPIO_2, LSEC pin 12 */
> > + "[SPI0_SCLK]", /* GPIO_3, LSEC pin 8 */
> > + "[UART1_TxD]", /* GPIO_4, LSEC pin 11 */
> > + "[UART1_RxD]", /* GPIO_5, LSEC pin 13 */
> > + "[I2C1_SDA]", /* GPIO_6, LSEC pin 21 */
> > + "[I2C1_SCL]", /* GPIO_7, LSEC pin 19 */
> > + "GPIO-H", /* GPIO_8, LSEC pin 30 */
> > + "TP93", /* GPIO_9 */
> > + "GPIO-G", /* GPIO_10, LSEC pin 29 */
> > + "[MDP_VSYNC_S]", /* GPIO_11, P HSEC pin 55 */
> > + "NC", /* GPIO_12 */
> > + "[CSI0_MCLK]", /* GPIO_13, P HSEC pin 15 */
> > + "[CAM_MCLK1]", /* GPIO_14, J14 pin 11 */
> > + "[CSI1_MCLK]", /* GPIO_15, P HSEC pin 17 */
>
> This could be a little misleading.
> 96Board name / schametic name:
> CSI0_MCLK / CAM_MCLK0
> - / CAM_MCLK1
> CSI1_MCLK / CAM_MCLK2
>
Agree. Will add the schematic names (CAM_MCLKn) in comments.
Thanks,
Mani
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Todor Tomov
Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property
Hi Mani,
Thank you for the patch.
On 14.04.2018 06:18, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Add gpio-line-names property for Dragonboard820c based on APQ8096 SoC.
> There are 4 gpio-controllers present on this board, including the
> APQ8096 SoC, PM8994 (GPIO and MPP) and PMI8994 (GPIO).
>
> Lines names are derived from 96Boards CE Specification 1.0, Appendix
> "Expansion Connector Signal Description". Line names for PMI8994 MPP
> pins are not added due to the absence of the gpio-controller support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi | 240
> +++
> 1 file changed, 240 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> index 1c8f1b86472d..1c1deef031c6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8096-db820c.dtsi
> @@ -19,6 +19,34 @@
> #include
> #include
>
> +/*
> + * GPIO name legend: proper name = the GPIO line is used as GPIO
> + * NC = not connected (pin out but not routed from the chip to
> + * anything the board)
> + * "[PER]" = pin is muxed for [peripheral] (not GPIO)
> + * LSEC= Low Speed External Connector
> + * HSEC= High Speed External Connector
> + * P HSEC = Primary High Speed External Connector
> + * S HSEC = Secondary High Speed External Connector
> + * J14 = Camera Connector
> + * TP = Test Points
> + *
> + * Line names are taken from the schematic "DragonBoard 820c",
> + * drawing no: LM25-P2751-1
> + *
> + * For the lines routed to the external connectors the
> + * lines are named after the 96Boards CE Specification 1.0,
> + * Appendix "Expansion Connector Signal Description".
> + *
> + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of
> + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification
> + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the
> + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this
> + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]",
It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when
some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An
example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do
it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in
the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names)
can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea?
> + * the GPIO named lines "GPIO-A" thru "GPIO-L" are the only
> + * ones actually used for GPIO.
> + */
> +
> / {
> aliases {
> serial0 = &blsp2_uart1;
> @@ -90,6 +118,218 @@
> status = "okay";
> };
>
> + pinctrl@101 {
> + gpio-line-names =
> + "[SPI0_DOUT]", /* GPIO_0, LSEC pin 14 */
> + "[SPI0_DIN]", /* GPIO_1, LSEC pin 10 */
> + "[SPI0_CS]", /* GPIO_2, LSEC pin 12 */
> + "[SPI0_SCLK]", /* GPIO_3, LSEC pin 8 */
> + "[UART1_TxD]", /* GPIO_4, LSEC pin 11 */
> + "[UART1_RxD]", /* GPIO_5, LSEC pin 13 */
> + "[I2C1_SDA]", /* GPIO_6, LSEC pin 21 */
> + "[I2C1_SCL]", /* GPIO_7, LSEC pin 19 */
> + "GPIO-H", /* GPIO_8, LSEC pin 30 */
> + "TP93", /* GPIO_9 */
> + "GPIO-G", /* GPIO_10, LSEC pin 29 */
> + "[MDP_VSYNC_S]", /* GPIO_11, P HSEC pin 55 */
> + "NC", /* GPIO_12 */
> + "[CSI0_MCLK]", /* GPIO_13, P HSEC pin 15 */
> + "[CAM_MCLK1]", /* GPIO_14, J14 pin 11 */
> + "[CSI1_MCLK]", /* GPIO_15, P HSEC pin 17 */
This could be a little misleading.
96Board name / schametic name:
CSI0_MCLK / CAM_MCLK0
- / CAM_MCLK1
CSI1_MCLK / CAM_MCLK2
--
Best regards,
Todor Tomov
