From: gregor.boirie@parrot.com (Grégor Boirie)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: pinctrl: group/pin identity mapping
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:57:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FCC6A5E.4030604@parrot.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FC8DA4B.2040600@wwwdotorg.org>
Hi,
Many thanks for your answers.
One more point which may be of interest. We have a few IPs which have
the ability to multiplex their own outputs to chip pins/pads...
Considering this, I'd like to avoid misconfigurations between drivers
(for IPs outputs) and platform pinctrl level while keeping source
verbosity to a minimum.
It seems to me the simplest way to achieve this, is to enforce a direct
group/pin mapping at pinctrl level and perform complex multiplexing
inside the IP/driver (since it is needed any way).
As far as I understand, this is the most flexible approach for us and
allow to address every single setup future boards would require without
breaking existing platform/pinctrl implementation.
Thanks again for having shared your views. Regards,
Gr?gor
On 06/01/2012 05:05 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 04:06 AM, Gr?gor Boirie wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm trying to implement pinctrl support for our new cortex based SoC.
>> Our driver should provide support for pinctrl/pinmux/pinconf combination
>> without device tree handling at the moment.
>> However, I'm afraid I misunderstand how groups relate to muxed pins and
>> I'd like to hear your suggestions.
>>
>> Here's the HW: our I/O pins subsystem allows us to multiplex every
>> controllable pins using up to 4 mutually exclusive functions, i.e. there
>> is no notion of pin GROUP multiplexing at the HW level (one register per
>> pin is available to setup multiplexing and other electronic properties
>> like drive strength, pull up/down...).
>>
>> However, it seems the pinctrl subsystem requires the driver to provide
>> pin groups for pinmux implementation.
>> So my question is: having no notion of HW pin groups whatsoever, should I:
>>
>> 1) implement a software/logical group that would arbitrarily gather
>> multiple HW pins in a platform dependent manner ?
>>
>> 2) perform an identity mapping between HW pin and software/logical group
>> with up to 4 groups/HW pins per pinmux function ?
>>
>> 3) anything else ? any way to bypass the pinctrl group logic to directly
>> assign pins rather than groups to pinmux functions ?
>
> Here's my take.
>
> pinctrl originally (early during design) only supported per-pin muxing.
> This didn't work for Tegra (since it really has register fields that
> affect muxing of multiple pins at once; groups), so I requested allowing
> per-group muxing as well. We ended up only allowing per-group muxing and
> dropped per-pin muxing:-( So, /my/ intention was to only use groups for
> true groups in HW.
>
> However, many others have taken this group muxing capability and used it
> for a different purpose; to define SW-only groups that end up affecting
> HW registers/fields and hence multiple pins at once, e.g. a group for
> for each of the possible mux locations for e.g. HW module UART A , which
> contain s of the pins used for that mux option.
>
> So, you have two choices:
>
> a) (Like Tegra30): Define a group for each pin, that contains just that
> one pin. This will allow you to pick the mux option for each pin
> individually (since there's a group per pin) in the pinctrl mapping
> table. In my (personal) opinion (which is evidently rarely shared), this
> is the correct approach, since the pinctrl driver directly models the HW
> capabilities. Also, if/when pinctrl re-gains the capability to request
> mux options per-pin in addition to per-group, the conversion will likely
> be quite trivial if you want to do so.
>
> b) For each HW module, for each set of pins it makes sense to use for
> that HW module (i.e. all the different sets of pins it can be mux'd to),
> create a group for those pins. Many pins will be in multiple different
> semi-arbitrarily overlapping groups. I personally call these "virtual
> groups" since they don't correspond 1:1 with HW registers/fields. Create
> a function for each HW module. Allow each HW module's function to be
> mux'd onto each of the groups you created for it. There are probably
> quite a few existing examples of this in drivers/pinctrl.
>
> Hope this helps!
--
Gr?gor Boirie
Software engineer
R&D / OS platform
tel +33 1 48 03 73 24
-----------------------------------------
Parrot
174, quai de Jemmapes
75010 Paris France
tel + 33 1 48 03 60 60
fax + 33 1 48 03 06 66
-----------------------------------------
http://www.parrot.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-04 7:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-01 10:06 pinctrl: group/pin identity mapping Grégor Boirie
2012-06-01 10:40 ` Ben Dooks
2012-06-01 15:05 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-04 7:57 ` Grégor Boirie [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FCC6A5E.4030604@parrot.com \
--to=gregor.boirie@parrot.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.