On 15/04/16 16:14, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Friday 15 April 2016 08:44 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 15/04/16 15:12, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> >>> >>> All CSI pads are lined to single IO rail. >> I agree with this and from the data-sheet I see the rail that powers the >> CSI (and DSI) interfaces is called AVDD_DSI_CSI. But again, in the DT >> document you are referring to csia, csib, csic, csid, csie, csif as >> pins, but these don't appear to be physical pins, and this appears to be >> more of a software means to control power to the various csi_x pins. >> >> It seems to me that each of the existing CSI_A_xxx pins/pads should be >> mapped to or register with the appropriate power-down control and when >> all pads are set to inactive this then triggers the power-down of all >> the CSI_A_xxx pads. > > I used pins as this is the property from pincon generic so that I can > use the generic implementation. > > Here, I will not go to the pin level control as HW does not support pin > level control. > > I will say the unit should be interface level. Should we say > IO_GROUP_CSIA, IO_GROUP_CSIB etc? So we need to reflect the hardware in device-tree and although yes the power-down for the CSI_x_xxx pads are all controlled together as a single group, it does not feel right that we add a pseudo pin called csix to represent these. The CSI_x_xxx pads are already in device-tree and so why not add a property to each of these pads which has the IO rail information for power-down and voltage-select? Cheers Jon -- 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
