From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:51:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: imx5: start numbering pad from 0 In-Reply-To: <20120815065526.GG19681@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> References: <1344869278-27334-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20120815054436.GK2232@pengutronix.de> <20120815065526.GG19681@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20120815075117.GL2232@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:55:27PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:44:36AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > Hello, > > > > (Cc += devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org) > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:59:18AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > > On 15 August 2012 03:37, Matt Sealey wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > > >> On 13 August 2012 23:12, Matt Sealey wrote: > > > >>> I have a minor nit; while renumbering the pinctrl definitions is > > > >>> laudable and device trees can match, there are 16 other pin controls > > > >>> below EIM_D16 - this makes the start of the IOMUXC pin definitions > > > >>> actually be the value calculated by (iomuxc_base + 0x300 + (4*16) + > > > >>> (pin_id*4)). > > > >> > > > >> What do you mean of this value calculated? > > > > > > > > Well, it just seems the datasheet has been read from the point of view > > > > of the SW_CTRL settings (pad pullups, drive strength etc.) to define > > > > the enums; every pin setting in order from IOMUXC_BASE + 0x3f0 (sorry > > > > I mistyped) has been entered as an enum into this list. Then a table > > > > has been generated using these enums to supply a pin id. Then this pin > > > > id is not relevant anymore; it actually gets referenced by it's > > > > *offset into the table*. > > > > > > > Not exactly, probably. > > > Basically we follow the mux reigster offset to define pin id, however, > > > there're also some pads may not have mux function but only config > > > which also has a pin id > > > and vice versa. > > > Those pins are not ordered by it's mux regsiter offset. > > > > > > Actually I did not manually search all those pins, instead, i just > > > using the exist ones: > > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h > > > Since this exist headfile already covers this case. > > > > > > > In this case, basically the code misses a few pins which have ALT > > > > settings but perhaps not always the ability to change pad control - > > > > EIM_DA5 to 15 are a good example. > > > > > > > As i said, we already defined those pin ids. > > > > > > > Probably better would be to define the binding almost exactly as it > > > > was done in the old method; iomux_v3_cfg_t took into account the three > > > > register offsets possible for the pin (SW_MUX_CTL, SW_PAD_CTL and IPP) > > > > and the three values to be put into those registers. > > > > > > > > This has been reduced down in pinctrl to what I find quite strange, > > > > which is a completely arbitrary pin "id" mapping, which indirectly > > > > references an entry in a table by index which is why pin 1 as a start > > > > looks odd. > > > > > > > Start with pin 1 is a bug which caused by my mistake during the early > > > data conversion. > > > > > > > If the binding is entirely i.MX-specific or even i.MX51-specific then > > > > why not define the pins in the device tree the "old" iomux_v3_cfg_t > > > > way, which is the way they are in the table of imx_pin_regs; > > > > > > > > IMX_PIN_REG(MX51_PAD_EIM_D16, 0x3f0, 0x05c, 5, 0x000, 0), /* > > > > MX51_PAD_EIM_D16__AUD4_RXFS */ > > > > > > > > 0x3f0 is the SW_PAD_CTL, 0x05c is the SW_MUX_CTL, 5 is the ALT mode, > > > > 0x000 is the IPP reg, and 0 the IPP value. > > > > > > > > So fsl,iomux-pins = <0x3f0 0x85 0x05c 5 0 0 ... > (PAD, settings, MUX, > > > > mode/sion, IPP, select - in that order) would be a valid pin > > > > definition and require no table. Sure, the offsets are device specific > > > > but then the arbitrary numbering is too. > > > > This way old iomux controls > > > > can be re-derived for people who use the old method in old kernels, or > > > > use U-Boot with iomux-v3.h taken from Linux (MX6 got ported, I am > > > > porting the Efika to it on MX5 for U-Boot right now). Also that huge > > > > table goes away - it can be built at runtime, along with the > > > > PAD_NAME__ALT_MODE_NAME description. > > > > > > > I can't agree this is better than the exist one now. > > > It's hard to use in device tree. > > > And how would you parse the pin id from this data array? > > I admit I didn't follow completely the calculation suggestion by Matt, > > but I think in general he has a point. This is more or less what I > > thought when I built the imx35 pinctrl driver. > > > > With the current approach (i.e. put the pinfuncs in some order that > > seems sensible today and then referencing them by index according to > > that ordering) you really get into troubles if you have to add a new > > function. You have to add it to the end to not break existing device > > trees and so the ordering is broken. > > > Actually, we do not mean to maintain the ordering in driver. > It just needs to be align with the pin func ids definitions in binding > doc. So the ordering broken in driver is not an issue, it just looks > not so better if we really have to add a new pin function to the end > due to mistake but this does not break anything to work. Well, if you add a function between say current function 11 and 12 all device trees need fixing, i.e. increase all function ids >= 12 by one. You obviously cannot fix out-of-tree users and even fixing the in-tree users is ugly. > > Also "11" has no obvious relation to MX35_PAD_COMPARE__SDMA_EXTDMA_2 > > other than a match if you grep over the binding docs (or the driver). > > While "0x32c, 0x008, 7, 0x0, 0" is longer and looks more ugly the > > mapping is obvious and so IMHO preferable. > > > Also, don't you think this is hard to use for devicetree? Not harder than the current approach. Obviously macro support would be nice, but this applies to both approaches. > And we need to reference datasheet to fill these values. I'd list the explicit values in the binding docs as the indexes are documented there now. So the difference for a device-tree writer is just the content that is copy-and-pasted. > I just keep using as the old way at best and i remember Sascha also suggested > before that we don't want to lose using the macro way as > MX35_PAD_COMPARE__SDMA_EXTDMA_2 to make easy use. > In the future, we will switch to macro when dt supports. > For the way "0x32c, 0x008, 7, 0x0, 0", it's very unconveniently to use macro. That is just #define MX35_PAD_COMPARE__SDMA_EXTDMA_2 11 vs. #define MX35_PAD_COMPARE__SDMA_EXTDMA_2 0x32c, 0x008, 7, 0x0, 0 isn't it? (Actually I'd not go for cpp as preprocessor, but that's a different story.) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |