Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add support for Amlogic A4 SoCs

[Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>]

Hi Neil,
    Thanks for your advice.

On 2024/10/28 17:09, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> 
> On 28/10/2024 10:07, Xianwei Zhao wrote:
>> Hi Neil,
>>      Based on the current discussion results, GPIO index macro 
>> definition does not belong to bindings. If so, the pinctrl driver 
>> keeps the existing architecture, and use numbers instead in dts file.  
>> Or the pinctrl driver use bank mode acess, this may not be compatible 
>> with existing frameworks. This is done by adding of_xlate hook 
>> functions in pinctrl_chip struct.
>>
>> What is your advice that I can implement in the next version. Thanks!
> 
> Keep the driver as-is, but move the header file into 
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic like it was done for the last reset 
> controller support:
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-t7-reset.h
>

I don't see examples C file applies dts header file.
C file need to be defined once, and this needs to be defined again in 
dts header file.

> Neil
> 
>>
>> On 2024/10/21 23:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>>
>>> On 21/10/2024 12:38, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
>>>>>> ====><=================
>>>>>> +/* Standard port */
>>>>>> +#define GPIOB_START        0
>>>>>> +#define GPIOB_NUM  14
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define GPIOD_START        (GPIOB_START + GPIOB_NUM)
>>>>>> +#define GPIOD_NUM  16
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define GPIOE_START        (GPIOD_START + GPIOD_NUM)
>>>>>> +#define GPIOE_NUM  2
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define GPIOT_START        (GPIOE_START + GPIOE_NUM)
>>>>>> +#define GPIOT_NUM  23
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define GPIOX_START        (GPIOT_START + GPIOT_NUM)
>>>>>> +#define GPIOX_NUM  18
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define PERIPHS_PIN_NUM    (GPIOX_START + GPIOX_NUM)
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* Aobus port */
>>>>>> +#define GPIOAO_START       0
>>>>>> +#define GPIOAO_NUM 7
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* It's a special definition, put at the end, just 1 num */
>>>>>> +#define    GPIO_TEST_N     (GPIOAO_START +  GPIOAO_NUM)
>>>>>> +#define    AOBUS_PIN_NUM   (GPIO_TEST_N + 1)
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define AMLOGIC_GPIO(port, offset) (port##_START + (offset))
>>>>>> ====><=================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is exactly what rob asked for, and you nacked it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, this is not what was asked, at least according to my 
>>>>> understanding.
>>>>> Number of GPIOs is not an ABI. Neither is their relationship, where 
>>>>> one
>>>>> starts and other ends.
>>>>
>>>> I confirm this need some work, but it moved the per-pin define to start
>>>> and ranges, so what did rob expect ?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I missed something, but I could not find any users of these 
>>>>> in the
>>>>> DTS. Look:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241014-a4_pinctrl-v2-3-3e74a65c285e@amlogic.com/
>>>>
>>>> So you want consumers before the bindings ? strange argument
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is any of above defines?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they will be visible in the consumer code, but I did not imagine
>>>>> such use. You expect:
>>>>> reset-gpios = <&ctrl GPIOAO_START 1>???
>>>>
>>>> No I expect:
>>>> reset-gpios = <&ctrl AMLOGIC_GPIO(B, 0) 1>;
>>>>
>>>> but the macro should go along the dts like we did for the reset 
>>>> defines,
>>>> so perhaps this is the solution ?
>>>
>>> OK, so I said it was not a binding:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/u4afxqc3ludsic4n3hs3r3drg3ftmsbcwfjltic2mb66foo47x@xe57gltl77hq/
>>>
>>> and you here confirm, if I understood you correctly, that it goes with
>>> the DTS like reset defines (I assume non-ID like defines?), so also not
>>> a binding?
>>>
>>> What are we disagreeing with?
>>>
>>> Just to recall, Jerome asked whether you have to now use arbitrary
>>> numbers in DTS and my answer was: not. It's still the same answer.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic