* Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support
2013-10-17 20:06 [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support Valentine Barshak
@ 2013-10-29 5:03 ` Simon Horman
2013-10-29 18:10 ` Laurent Pinchart
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2013-10-29 5:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:06:43AM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> This adds missing VIN1/2/3 pin configuration to pfc-r8a7790.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <valentine.barshak@cogentembedded.com>
Hi Laurent,
could you consider taking this change?
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c | 202 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> index 64fcc006..9ab2f71 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> @@ -2996,22 +2996,168 @@ static const unsigned int vin0_clk_mux[] = {
> VI0_CLK_MARK,
> };
> /* - VIN1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- */
> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_pins[] = {
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_mux[] = {
> + VI1_G0_MARK, VI1_G1_MARK, VI1_G2_MARK,
> + VI1_G3_MARK, VI1_G4_MARK, VI1_G5_MARK,
> + VI1_G6_MARK, VI1_G7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_mux[] = {
> + VI1_R0_MARK, VI1_R1_MARK, VI1_R2_MARK,
> + VI1_R3_MARK, VI1_R4_MARK, VI1_R5_MARK,
> + VI1_R6_MARK, VI1_R7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_pins[] = {
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 12),
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 15),
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 17),
> };
> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_mux[] = {
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_mux[] = {
> VI1_DATA0_VI1_B0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_VI1_B1_MARK, VI1_DATA2_VI1_B2_MARK,
> VI1_DATA3_VI1_B3_MARK, VI1_DATA4_VI1_B4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_VI1_B5_MARK,
> VI1_DATA6_VI1_B6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_VI1_B7_MARK,
> };
> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI1_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 25),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI1_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_field_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 13),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_field_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI1_FIELD_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_enable_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 26),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_enable_mux[] = {
> + VI1_CLKENB_MARK,
> +};
> static const unsigned int vin1_clk_pins[] = {
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 9),
> };
> static const unsigned int vin1_clk_mux[] = {
> VI1_CLK_MARK,
> };
> +/* - VIN2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- */
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_g_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_g_mux[] = {
> + VI2_G0_MARK, VI2_G1_MARK, VI2_G2_MARK,
> + VI2_G3_MARK, VI2_G4_MARK, VI2_G5_MARK,
> + VI2_G6_MARK, VI2_G7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_r_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_r_mux[] = {
> + VI2_R0_MARK, VI2_R1_MARK, VI2_R2_MARK,
> + VI2_R3_MARK, VI2_R4_MARK, VI2_R5_MARK,
> + VI2_R6_MARK, VI2_R7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_b_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 8), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 10),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 13),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 15),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_b_mux[] = {
> + VI2_DATA0_VI2_B0_MARK, VI2_DATA1_VI2_B1_MARK, VI2_DATA2_VI2_B2_MARK,
> + VI2_DATA3_VI2_B3_MARK, VI2_DATA4_VI2_B4_MARK, VI2_DATA5_VI2_B5_MARK,
> + VI2_DATA6_VI2_B6_MARK, VI2_DATA7_VI2_B7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 16),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 21),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_field_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_field_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_FIELD_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_enable_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_enable_mux[] = {
> + VI2_CLKENB_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_clk_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 11),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_clk_mux[] = {
> + VI2_CLK_MARK,
> +};
> +/* - VIN3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- */
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 0), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 1), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 2),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 3), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 5),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 6), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 7),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_mux[] = {
> + VI3_DATA0_MARK, VI3_DATA1_MARK, VI3_DATA2_MARK,
> + VI3_DATA3_MARK, VI3_DATA4_MARK, VI3_DATA5_MARK,
> + VI3_DATA6_MARK, VI3_DATA7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 16),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI3_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_field_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_field_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI3_FIELD_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_enable_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_enable_mux[] = {
> + VI3_CLKENB_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_clk_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 23),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_clk_mux[] = {
> + VI3_CLK_MARK,
> +};
>
> static const struct sh_pfc_pin_group pinmux_groups[] = {
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(du_rgb666),
> @@ -3185,8 +3331,28 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_pin_group pinmux_groups[] = {
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin0_field_signal),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin0_data_enable),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin0_clk),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_g),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_r),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_b),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_hsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_vsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_field_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_enable),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_clk),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_g),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_r),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_b),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_hsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_vsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_field_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_enable),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_clk),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_data),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_hsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_vsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_field_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_data_enable),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_clk),
> };
>
> static const char * const du_groups[] = {
> @@ -3457,10 +3623,36 @@ static const char * const vin0_groups[] = {
> };
>
> static const char * const vin1_groups[] = {
> - "vin1_data",
> + "vin1_data_g",
> + "vin1_data_r",
> + "vin1_data_b",
> + "vin1_hsync_signal",
> + "vin1_vsync_signal",
> + "vin1_field_signal",
> + "vin1_data_enable",
> "vin1_clk",
> };
>
> +static const char * const vin2_groups[] = {
> + "vin2_data_g",
> + "vin2_data_r",
> + "vin2_data_b",
> + "vin2_hsync_signal",
> + "vin2_vsync_signal",
> + "vin2_field_signal",
> + "vin2_data_enable",
> + "vin2_clk",
> +};
> +
> +static const char * const vin3_groups[] = {
> + "vin3_data",
> + "vin3_hsync_signal",
> + "vin3_vsync_signal",
> + "vin3_field_signal",
> + "vin3_data_enable",
> + "vin3_clk",
> +};
> +
> static const struct sh_pfc_function pinmux_functions[] = {
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(du),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(du0),
> @@ -3495,6 +3687,8 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_function pinmux_functions[] = {
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(usb2),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin0),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin1),
> + SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin2),
> + SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin3),
> };
>
> static struct pinmux_cfg_reg pinmux_config_regs[] = {
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support
2013-10-17 20:06 [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support Valentine Barshak
2013-10-29 5:03 ` Simon Horman
@ 2013-10-29 18:10 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-09 19:14 ` Valentine
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-10-29 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Valentine,
Thanks you for the patch.
On Friday 18 October 2013 00:06:43 Valentine Barshak wrote:
> This adds missing VIN1/2/3 pin configuration to pfc-r8a7790.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <valentine.barshak@cogentembedded.com>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c index 64fcc006..9ab2f71 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> @@ -2996,22 +2996,168 @@ static const unsigned int vin0_clk_mux[] = {
> VI0_CLK_MARK,
> };
> /* - VIN1 -------------------------------------------------------------- */
> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_pins[] = {
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_mux[] = {
> + VI1_G0_MARK, VI1_G1_MARK, VI1_G2_MARK,
> + VI1_G3_MARK, VI1_G4_MARK, VI1_G5_MARK,
> + VI1_G6_MARK, VI1_G7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_mux[] = {
> + VI1_R0_MARK, VI1_R1_MARK, VI1_R2_MARK,
> + VI1_R3_MARK, VI1_R4_MARK, VI1_R5_MARK,
> + VI1_R6_MARK, VI1_R7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_pins[] = {
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 12),
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 15),
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 17),
> };
> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_mux[] = {
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_mux[] = {
> VI1_DATA0_VI1_B0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_VI1_B1_MARK, VI1_DATA2_VI1_B2_MARK,
> VI1_DATA3_VI1_B3_MARK, VI1_DATA4_VI1_B4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_VI1_B5_MARK,
> VI1_DATA6_VI1_B6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_VI1_B7_MARK,
> };
Given the wide variety of ways the VIN data pins can be used, I see two ways
to group them:
- List all possible combinations of data pins with a single group per
configuration. There are 11 combinations, but due to overlap in the pins used
the number can be reduced to 8.
- List groups individually and combine them to create a valid configuration.
We would have at least 8 groups in this case as well.
Given that the number of groups would be identical, my preference would go for
the first solution. The RGB data pin group would contain all 24 RGB pins in
that case, and additional overlapping groups would be defined for other input
configurations. Would you be fine with that ? VIN1 would be handled
identically, and VIN2 would need 5 groups only. VIN3 is already defined
correctly, as it supports a single configuration only.
> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
I think you can drop _signal here and below.
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI1_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 25),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI1_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
If I'm not mistaken the hsync and vsync signals can't be used independently,
so they should be grouped together.
> +static const unsigned int vin1_field_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 13),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_field_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI1_FIELD_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_enable_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 26),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_enable_mux[] = {
> + VI1_CLKENB_MARK,
> +};
> static const unsigned int vin1_clk_pins[] = {
> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 9),
> };
> static const unsigned int vin1_clk_mux[] = {
> VI1_CLK_MARK,
> };
> +/* - VIN2 -----------------------------------------------------------------
> */ +static const unsigned int vin2_data_g_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_g_mux[] = {
> + VI2_G0_MARK, VI2_G1_MARK, VI2_G2_MARK,
> + VI2_G3_MARK, VI2_G4_MARK, VI2_G5_MARK,
> + VI2_G6_MARK, VI2_G7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_r_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_r_mux[] = {
> + VI2_R0_MARK, VI2_R1_MARK, VI2_R2_MARK,
> + VI2_R3_MARK, VI2_R4_MARK, VI2_R5_MARK,
> + VI2_R6_MARK, VI2_R7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_b_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 8), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 10),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 13),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 15),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_b_mux[] = {
> + VI2_DATA0_VI2_B0_MARK, VI2_DATA1_VI2_B1_MARK, VI2_DATA2_VI2_B2_MARK,
> + VI2_DATA3_VI2_B3_MARK, VI2_DATA4_VI2_B4_MARK, VI2_DATA5_VI2_B5_MARK,
> + VI2_DATA6_VI2_B6_MARK, VI2_DATA7_VI2_B7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 16),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 21),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_field_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_field_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_FIELD_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_enable_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_data_enable_mux[] = {
> + VI2_CLKENB_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_clk_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 11),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin2_clk_mux[] = {
> + VI2_CLK_MARK,
> +};
> +/* - VIN3 -----------------------------------------------------------------
> */ +static const unsigned int vin3_data_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 0), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 1), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 2),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 3), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 5),
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 6), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 7),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_mux[] = {
> + VI3_DATA0_MARK, VI3_DATA1_MARK, VI3_DATA2_MARK,
> + VI3_DATA3_MARK, VI3_DATA4_MARK, VI3_DATA5_MARK,
> + VI3_DATA6_MARK, VI3_DATA7_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 16),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI3_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI2_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_field_signal_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_field_signal_mux[] = {
> + VI3_FIELD_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_enable_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_data_enable_mux[] = {
> + VI3_CLKENB_MARK,
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_clk_pins[] = {
> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 23),
> +};
> +static const unsigned int vin3_clk_mux[] = {
> + VI3_CLK_MARK,
> +};
>
> static const struct sh_pfc_pin_group pinmux_groups[] = {
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(du_rgb666),
> @@ -3185,8 +3331,28 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_pin_group pinmux_groups[]
> = { SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin0_field_signal),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin0_data_enable),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin0_clk),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_g),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_r),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_b),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_hsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_vsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_field_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_data_enable),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin1_clk),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_g),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_r),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_b),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_hsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_vsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_field_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_data_enable),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin2_clk),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_data),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_hsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_vsync_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_field_signal),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_data_enable),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(vin3_clk),
> };
>
> static const char * const du_groups[] = {
> @@ -3457,10 +3623,36 @@ static const char * const vin0_groups[] = {
> };
>
> static const char * const vin1_groups[] = {
> - "vin1_data",
> + "vin1_data_g",
> + "vin1_data_r",
> + "vin1_data_b",
> + "vin1_hsync_signal",
> + "vin1_vsync_signal",
> + "vin1_field_signal",
> + "vin1_data_enable",
> "vin1_clk",
> };
>
> +static const char * const vin2_groups[] = {
> + "vin2_data_g",
> + "vin2_data_r",
> + "vin2_data_b",
> + "vin2_hsync_signal",
> + "vin2_vsync_signal",
> + "vin2_field_signal",
> + "vin2_data_enable",
> + "vin2_clk",
> +};
> +
> +static const char * const vin3_groups[] = {
> + "vin3_data",
> + "vin3_hsync_signal",
> + "vin3_vsync_signal",
> + "vin3_field_signal",
> + "vin3_data_enable",
> + "vin3_clk",
> +};
> +
> static const struct sh_pfc_function pinmux_functions[] = {
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(du),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(du0),
> @@ -3495,6 +3687,8 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_function pinmux_functions[]
> = { SH_PFC_FUNCTION(usb2),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin0),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin1),
> + SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin2),
> + SH_PFC_FUNCTION(vin3),
> };
>
> static struct pinmux_cfg_reg pinmux_config_regs[] = {
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support
2013-10-17 20:06 [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support Valentine Barshak
2013-10-29 5:03 ` Simon Horman
2013-10-29 18:10 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2013-12-09 19:14 ` Valentine
2013-12-10 1:45 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-10 11:45 ` Valentine
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valentine @ 2013-12-09 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
On 10/29/2013 10:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Valentine,
Hi Laurent,
sorry for delay.
>
> Thanks you for the patch.
>
> On Friday 18 October 2013 00:06:43 Valentine Barshak wrote:
>> This adds missing VIN1/2/3 pin configuration to pfc-r8a7790.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <valentine.barshak@cogentembedded.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
>> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c index 64fcc006..9ab2f71 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
>> @@ -2996,22 +2996,168 @@ static const unsigned int vin0_clk_mux[] = {
>> VI0_CLK_MARK,
>> };
>> /* - VIN1 -------------------------------------------------------------- */
>> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_pins[] = {
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_pins[] = {
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12),
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_mux[] = {
>> + VI1_G0_MARK, VI1_G1_MARK, VI1_G2_MARK,
>> + VI1_G3_MARK, VI1_G4_MARK, VI1_G5_MARK,
>> + VI1_G6_MARK, VI1_G7_MARK,
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_pins[] = {
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6),
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_mux[] = {
>> + VI1_R0_MARK, VI1_R1_MARK, VI1_R2_MARK,
>> + VI1_R3_MARK, VI1_R4_MARK, VI1_R5_MARK,
>> + VI1_R6_MARK, VI1_R7_MARK,
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_pins[] = {
>> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 12),
>> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 15),
>> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 17),
>> };
>> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_mux[] = {
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_mux[] = {
>> VI1_DATA0_VI1_B0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_VI1_B1_MARK, VI1_DATA2_VI1_B2_MARK,
>> VI1_DATA3_VI1_B3_MARK, VI1_DATA4_VI1_B4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_VI1_B5_MARK,
>> VI1_DATA6_VI1_B6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_VI1_B7_MARK,
>> };
>
> Given the wide variety of ways the VIN data pins can be used, I see two ways
> to group them:
>
> - List all possible combinations of data pins with a single group per
> configuration. There are 11 combinations, but due to overlap in the pins used
> the number can be reduced to 8.
>
> - List groups individually and combine them to create a valid configuration.
> We would have at least 8 groups in this case as well.
>
> Given that the number of groups would be identical, my preference would go for
> the first solution. The RGB data pin group would contain all 24 RGB pins in
> that case, and additional overlapping groups would be defined for other input
> configurations. Would you be fine with that ? VIN1 would be handled
> identically, and VIN2 would need 5 groups only. VIN3 is already defined
> correctly, as it supports a single configuration only.
I'm only adding missing stuff here. VIN0/VIN1 are identical so I'm adding VIN1
the same way VIN0 is currently grouped.
I'm generally fine with re-grouping data pins, but I think it should be a separate change.
We'd also need to choose simple names for the groups which are easily readable and show
which pins are used there. Something like:
data_r07g07b07 (24 bits for RGB24)
data_r27g27b27 (pins 2-7 for ITU-R BT.601/BT.709 RGB-666)
>
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
>
> I think you can drop _signal here and below.
I didn't intend to edit the existing naming. All I wanted to do is add the definitions
for the missing pins here. I think name editing should be done by a separate patch if needed.
IMHO, otherwise it would be a mess.
>
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
>> + VI1_HSYNC_N_MARK,
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 25),
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
>> + VI1_VSYNC_N_MARK,
>> +};
>
> If I'm not mistaken the hsync and vsync signals can't be used independently,
> so they should be grouped together.
I'm just using the current VIN0 layout for VIN1 here.
I'm not intending to regroup anything here. The purpose of these
changes is to add missing pins. I believe regrouping should be done
by a separate patch if needed.
[snip]
Thanks,
Val.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support
2013-10-17 20:06 [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support Valentine Barshak
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-09 19:14 ` Valentine
@ 2013-12-10 1:45 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-10 11:45 ` Valentine
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-12-10 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Valentine,
On Monday 09 December 2013 23:14:29 Valentine wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 10:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Friday 18 October 2013 00:06:43 Valentine Barshak wrote:
> >> This adds missing VIN1/2/3 pin configuration to pfc-r8a7790.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <valentine.barshak@cogentembedded.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> >> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c index 64fcc006..9ab2f71 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
> >> @@ -2996,22 +2996,168 @@ static const unsigned int vin0_clk_mux[] = {
> >> VI0_CLK_MARK,
> >> };
> >> /* - VIN1 ---------------------------------------------------------- */
> >> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_pins[] = {
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_pins[] = {
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12),
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_mux[] = {
> >> + VI1_G0_MARK, VI1_G1_MARK, VI1_G2_MARK,
> >> + VI1_G3_MARK, VI1_G4_MARK, VI1_G5_MARK,
> >> + VI1_G6_MARK, VI1_G7_MARK,
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_pins[] = {
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6),
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_mux[] = {
> >> + VI1_R0_MARK, VI1_R1_MARK, VI1_R2_MARK,
> >> + VI1_R3_MARK, VI1_R4_MARK, VI1_R5_MARK,
> >> + VI1_R6_MARK, VI1_R7_MARK,
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_pins[] = {
> >> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 12),
> >> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 15),
> >> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 17),
> >> };
> >>
> >> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_mux[] = {
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_mux[] = {
> >>
> >> VI1_DATA0_VI1_B0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_VI1_B1_MARK, VI1_DATA2_VI1_B2_MARK,
> >> VI1_DATA3_VI1_B3_MARK, VI1_DATA4_VI1_B4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_VI1_B5_MARK,
> >> VI1_DATA6_VI1_B6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_VI1_B7_MARK,
> >>
> >> };
> >
> > Given the wide variety of ways the VIN data pins can be used, I see two
> > ways to group them:
> >
> > - List all possible combinations of data pins with a single group per
> > configuration. There are 11 combinations, but due to overlap in the pins
> > used the number can be reduced to 8.
> >
> > - List groups individually and combine them to create a valid
> > configuration. We would have at least 8 groups in this case as well.
> >
> > Given that the number of groups would be identical, my preference would go
> > for the first solution. The RGB data pin group would contain all 24 RGB
> > pins in that case, and additional overlapping groups would be defined for
> > other input configurations. Would you be fine with that ? VIN1 would be
> > handled identically, and VIN2 would need 5 groups only. VIN3 is already
> > defined correctly, as it supports a single configuration only.
>
> I'm only adding missing stuff here. VIN0/VIN1 are identical so I'm adding
> VIN1 the same way VIN0 is currently grouped.
> I'm generally fine with re-grouping data pins, but I think it should be a
> separate change. We'd also need to choose simple names for the groups which
> are easily readable and show which pins are used there. Something like:
> data_r07g07b07 (24 bits for RGB24)
> data_r27g27b27 (pins 2-7 for ITU-R BT.601/BT.709 RGB-666)
Renaming pin groups can be an issue if they are used by existing platforms, so
I'd rather first think about the way pins should be grouped, fix the existing
code if needed, and then adding the new groups. Would that be fine ?
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
> >
> > I think you can drop _signal here and below.
>
> I didn't intend to edit the existing naming. All I wanted to do is add the
> definitions for the missing pins here. I think name editing should be done
> by a separate patch if needed. IMHO, otherwise it would be a mess.
>
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
> >> + VI1_HSYNC_N_MARK,
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
> >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 25),
> >> +};
> >> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
> >> + VI1_VSYNC_N_MARK,
> >> +};
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken the hsync and vsync signals can't be used
> > independently, so they should be grouped together.
>
> I'm just using the current VIN0 layout for VIN1 here.
> I'm not intending to regroup anything here. The purpose of these
> changes is to add missing pins. I believe regrouping should be done
> by a separate patch if needed.
Sure, but could you then please send patches that drop _signal and group
hsync+vsync, and rebase this patch on top of that ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support
2013-10-17 20:06 [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: pfc-r8a7790: Add full VIN1/2/3 support Valentine Barshak
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-10 1:45 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2013-12-10 11:45 ` Valentine
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valentine @ 2013-12-10 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
On 12/10/2013 05:45 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Valentine,
>
> On Monday 09 December 2013 23:14:29 Valentine wrote:
>> On 10/29/2013 10:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Friday 18 October 2013 00:06:43 Valentine Barshak wrote:
>>>> This adds missing VIN1/2/3 pin configuration to pfc-r8a7790.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <valentine.barshak@cogentembedded.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
>>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c index 64fcc006..9ab2f71 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c
>>>> @@ -2996,22 +2996,168 @@ static const unsigned int vin0_clk_mux[] = {
>>>> VI0_CLK_MARK,
>>>> };
>>>> /* - VIN1 ---------------------------------------------------------- */
>>>> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_pins[] = {
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_pins[] = {
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 15), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 17),
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 20), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 22), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12),
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 9), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 7),
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_g_mux[] = {
>>>> + VI1_G0_MARK, VI1_G1_MARK, VI1_G2_MARK,
>>>> + VI1_G3_MARK, VI1_G4_MARK, VI1_G5_MARK,
>>>> + VI1_G6_MARK, VI1_G7_MARK,
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_pins[] = {
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 28), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 29),
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 4), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 5), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 6),
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 8),
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_r_mux[] = {
>>>> + VI1_R0_MARK, VI1_R1_MARK, VI1_R2_MARK,
>>>> + VI1_R3_MARK, VI1_R4_MARK, VI1_R5_MARK,
>>>> + VI1_R6_MARK, VI1_R7_MARK,
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_pins[] = {
>>>> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 11), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 12),
>>>> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 13), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 15),
>>>> RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(2, 17),
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> -static const unsigned int vin1_data_mux[] = {
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data_b_mux[] = {
>>>>
>>>> VI1_DATA0_VI1_B0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_VI1_B1_MARK, VI1_DATA2_VI1_B2_MARK,
>>>> VI1_DATA3_VI1_B3_MARK, VI1_DATA4_VI1_B4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_VI1_B5_MARK,
>>>> VI1_DATA6_VI1_B6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_VI1_B7_MARK,
>>>>
>>>> };
>>>
>>> Given the wide variety of ways the VIN data pins can be used, I see two
>>> ways to group them:
>>>
>>> - List all possible combinations of data pins with a single group per
>>> configuration. There are 11 combinations, but due to overlap in the pins
>>> used the number can be reduced to 8.
>>>
>>> - List groups individually and combine them to create a valid
>>> configuration. We would have at least 8 groups in this case as well.
>>>
>>> Given that the number of groups would be identical, my preference would go
>>> for the first solution. The RGB data pin group would contain all 24 RGB
>>> pins in that case, and additional overlapping groups would be defined for
>>> other input configurations. Would you be fine with that ? VIN1 would be
>>> handled identically, and VIN2 would need 5 groups only. VIN3 is already
>>> defined correctly, as it supports a single configuration only.
>>
>> I'm only adding missing stuff here. VIN0/VIN1 are identical so I'm adding
>> VIN1 the same way VIN0 is currently grouped.
>> I'm generally fine with re-grouping data pins, but I think it should be a
>> separate change. We'd also need to choose simple names for the groups which
>> are easily readable and show which pins are used there. Something like:
>> data_r07g07b07 (24 bits for RGB24)
>> data_r27g27b27 (pins 2-7 for ITU-R BT.601/BT.709 RGB-666)
>
> Renaming pin groups can be an issue if they are used by existing platforms, so
> I'd rather first think about the way pins should be grouped, fix the existing
> code if needed, and then adding the new groups. Would that be fine ?
>
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_pins[] = {
>>>
>>> I think you can drop _signal here and below.
>>
>> I didn't intend to edit the existing naming. All I wanted to do is add the
>> definitions for the missing pins here. I think name editing should be done
>> by a separate patch if needed. IMHO, otherwise it would be a mess.
>>
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 24),
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_hsync_signal_mux[] = {
>>>> + VI1_HSYNC_N_MARK,
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_pins[] = {
>>>> + RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 25),
>>>> +};
>>>> +static const unsigned int vin1_vsync_signal_mux[] = {
>>>> + VI1_VSYNC_N_MARK,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> If I'm not mistaken the hsync and vsync signals can't be used
>>> independently, so they should be grouped together.
>>
>> I'm just using the current VIN0 layout for VIN1 here.
>> I'm not intending to regroup anything here. The purpose of these
>> changes is to add missing pins. I believe regrouping should be done
>> by a separate patch if needed.
>
> Sure, but could you then please send patches that drop _signal and group
> hsync+vsync, and rebase this patch on top of that ?
>
OK, I'll take a look at that, but I don't see much of a point in adjusting the names
and modifying/rebasing this patch on top of that.
I think that would just involve more work, while eventually having the same result.
I was planning to regroup the pins and rename the groups on top of this one.
Thanks,
Val.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread