On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy
<yendapally.reddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy
>> <yendapally.reddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +static const unsigned int gpio_0_1_pins[] = {24, 25};
>>> +static const unsigned int pwm_0_pins[] = {24};
>>> +static const unsigned int pwm_1_pins[] = {25};
>>
>> So either the same pins are used for GPIO or PWM.
>> And this pattern persists.
>>
>> Do you have a brewing GPIO driver for this block as well?
>> Is it a separate front-end calling to pinctrl using the
>> pinctrl_gpio_* calls or do you plan to patch it into this
>> driver?
>>
>> This is more of a question.
>>
>
> This SoC supports group based configuration and there is a top level register
> to select groups. Once the gpio_0_1_pins group is selected, there is one more
> register to select between gpio_0_1 and pwm (only four pins). The pins
> 24 and 25 are shared between nor pins and gpio at the top group level. Once
> gpio group is selected, then we can select to be either gpio or pwm. I missed
> these two pins to be added to nor_data_pins and will add in the next version.
>
> static const unsigned nor_data_pins[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
> 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25};
>
> NS2_PIN_GROUP(nand, 0, 0, 31, 1, 0),
> NS2_PIN_GROUP(nor_data, 0, 0, 31, 1, 1),
> NS2_PIN_GROUP(gpio_0_1, 0, 0, 31, 1, 0),
>
> To select PWM, we need to select gpio and pwm as well.
>
> gpio: gpio {
> function = "gpio";
> groups = "gpio_0_1_grp";
>
> pwm: pwm {
> function = "pwm";
> groups = "pwm0_grp", "pwm1_grp";
> };
>
> Already available gpio driver "pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c" will be the gpio driver
> for this soc as well without pin request.
Then you are doing something wrong. Look in pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:
/*
* Request the Iproc IOMUX pinmux controller to mux individual pins to GPIO
*/
static int iproc_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
{
struct iproc_gpio *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
unsigned gpio = gc->base + offset;
/* not all Iproc GPIO pins can be muxed individually */
if (!chip->pinmux_is_supported)
return 0;
return pinctrl_request_gpio(gpio);
}
static void iproc_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
{
struct iproc_gpio *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
unsigned gpio = gc->base + offset;
if (!chip->pinmux_is_supported)
return;
pinctrl_free_gpio(gpio);
}
So as you see pinctrl_request_gpio() and pinctrl_free_gpio()
are being called.
These will in turn call pinmux_request_gpio() and
pinmux_free_gpio() to make the backing pin controller
mux in the pin as GPIO.
pinmux_request_gpio() will end up in pin_request()
and at this point:
if (gpio_range && ops->gpio_request_enable)
/* This requests and enables a single GPIO pin */
status = ops->gpio_request_enable(pctldev, gpio_range, pin);
As you can see: it will attempt to call the .gpio_request_enable()
method of your struct pinmux_ops.
But your pinmux ops look like this:
+static struct pinmux_ops ns2_pinmux_ops = {
+ .get_functions_count = ns2_get_functions_count,
+ .get_function_name = ns2_get_function_name,
+ .get_function_groups = ns2_get_function_groups,
+ .set_mux = ns2_pinmux_enable,
+};
I.e. there is no way that GPIO can be set up as a GPIO line,
and you're relying on some other pin control entries in the
device tree to do that, which is unnecessarily complicated.
Please consider implementing the .gpio_request_enable callback
for this pin multiplexer.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
