public inbox for devicetree@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: Ram Chandra Jangir <rjangir@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	'Linus Walleij' <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	'Rob Herring' <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	'Mark Rutland' <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	'John Crispin' <john@phrozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: ipq4019: add remaining pin definitions
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:18:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6378379.o12yG5fNYn@debian64> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170706060243.GP18666@tuxbook>

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:02:43 PM CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 24 May 06:04 PDT 2017, Ram Chandra Jangir wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:59 AM CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> [..]
> > >This makes me wonder what wifi1_uart (and uart1) actually is...
> > 
> > >The wifi\d_uart seems to have 5 pins in its group and wifi\d_uart\d seems
> > to be two sets of two pins. So perhaps this is some alternative routing and
> > wifi0_uart0 and wifi0_uart1 is actually the same function?
> > 
> > >@Ram, can you help us out here?
> > 
> 
> Ram, thanks for your answer. Unfortunately I missed this mail until
> Christian posted the new version of the patch.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't understand the functions provided here, so I hope
> you can help me better understand what's going on.
> 
> > wifi0_uart0 and wifi0_uart1 are different functions,  and they are mapped as
> > below:
> > wifi0_uart    -->  wifi0   uart   RTS
> > wifi0_uart0  -->  wifi0  uart   RxD
> > wifi0_uart1  -->  wifi0  uart   CTS
> 
> Christian has the following groups of pins for each function:
> 
> wifi0_uart: pin 8, 9, 11, 19 and 62
> wifi0_uart0: pin 9 and 10
> wifi0_uart1: pin 18 and 63
> 
> It's common to see alternative muxing of functions, so I'm guessing that
> wifi0_uart1 is one of these. Is this correct?
> 
> But why is there 5 pins for RTS?
> 
> Why is receive (wifi0_uart0) two adjacent pins? Are they perhaps Rx and
> Tx?
> 
> Why do we have a CTS line if we only have RxD, no TxD?
> 
> > 
> > wifi1_uart    -->  wifi1   uart   TxD
> > wifi1_uart0  -->  wifi1   uart   RxD  
> > wifi1_uart1  -->  wifi1   uart   CTS
> > 
> 
> Why is there no RTS for this when it seems bidirectional?

no response in over a week. :-/

I removed the wifi*_uart* definitions in V3. I think we can life without 
them. If QCA ever releases the firmware code to the public, they would 
be of some use but until them, we can do without.

Regards,
Christian

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-14 13:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-10 11:27 [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add most other IPQ4019 pin functions and groups Christian Lamparter
     [not found] ` <d53b7a9b1bab818536680123136ac58481d959c8.1494415174.git.chunkeey-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-10 11:27   ` [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: qcom: ipq4019: " Christian Lamparter
     [not found]     ` <20170510112712.14744-1-chunkeey-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-13  0:10       ` Rob Herring
2017-05-13 16:03         ` Christian Lamparter
2017-05-16  0:13           ` Rob Herring
2017-05-10 11:27   ` [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: ipq4019: add remaining pin definitions Christian Lamparter
     [not found]     ` <3dac044cd9a879cad145f9a04dcc3d225721aa3c.1494415174.git.chunkeey-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-10 22:23       ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-05-17 20:07     ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-05-18 18:38       ` Christian Lamparter
2017-05-20  5:08         ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-05-23 16:58           ` Christian Lamparter
2017-05-23 19:28             ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-05-24 13:04               ` Ram Chandra Jangir
2017-07-06  6:02                 ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-07-14 13:18                   ` Christian Lamparter [this message]
2017-05-13  0:07 ` [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add most other IPQ4019 pin functions and groups Rob Herring

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=6378379.o12yG5fNYn@debian64 \
    --to=chunkeey@googlemail.com \
    --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=john@phrozen.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=rjangir@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox