From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: tegra-xusb: Correct lane mux options Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:17:12 -0600 Message-ID: <56212308.7050405@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1444987441-25176-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1444987441-25176-1-git-send-email-jonathanh-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jon Hunter , Thierry Reding Cc: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 10/16/2015 03:24 AM, Jon Hunter wrote: > The description of the XUSB_PADCTL_USB3_PAD_MUX_0 register in the Tegra124 > documentation implies that all functions (pcie, usb3 and sata) can be > muxed onto to all lanes (pcie lanes 0-4 and sata lane 0). However, it has > been confirmed that this is not the case and the mux'ing options much more > limited. Unfortunately, the public documentation has not been updated to > reflect this and so detail the actual mux'ing options here by function: FWIW, there's better documentation of this in the Tegra210 TRM, although the options have been expanded on that chip, so the docs don't entirely apply to Tegra124. > Function: Lanes: > pcie1 x2: pcie3, pcie4 > pcie1 x4: pcie1, pcie2, pcie3, pcie4 > pcie2 x1 (option1): pcie0 > pcie2 x1 (option2): pcie2 > usb3 port 0: pcie0 > usb3 port 1 (option 1): pcie1 > usb3 port 1 (option 2): sata0 > sata: sata0 I think this change needs a DT binding change to go along with it. Can you take a look at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg449647.html [PATCH 1/2] dt: update Tegra XUSB padctl binding for Tegra210 (Sorry, I didn't realize anyone other than Thierry and Andrew were working on XUSB/padctl so didn't explicitly CC you on that.) ... to see what would need to be changed there? Or from a binding perspective should we simply assume that people will refer to the HW docs (or other information sources) for the exact list of available options?