From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: tegra-xusb: Correct lane mux options Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:41:43 +0100 Message-ID: <5624D6F7.6020906@nvidia.com> References: <1444987441-25176-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <56212308.7050405@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56212308.7050405@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren , Thierry Reding Cc: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 16/10/15 17:17, Stephen Warren wrote: > 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. Yes I have been trying to get this better documented. >> 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? Yes may be the above needs to go in the binding doc. For t124, I don't think that the TRM will get updated now. Jon