在 2017-05-29 21:11，Chen-Yu Tsai 写道：
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 06:23:04PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:R40 is said to be an upgrade of A20, and its pin configuration is also similar to A20 (and thus similar to A10). Add support for R40 to the A10 pinctrl driver. Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Kconfig | 2 +-drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++---------2 files changed, 197 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Kconfig b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Kconfigindex 624d84e6c936..9d01da3b90bd 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/Kconfig @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ config PINCTRL_SUNXI select GPIOLIB config PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 - def_bool MACH_SUN4I || MACH_SUN7I + def_bool MACH_SUN4I || MACH_SUN7I || MACH_SUN8I select PINCTRL_SUNXI config PINCTRL_SUN5Idiff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun4i-a10.cindex 159580c04b14..0f6ca8391ea7 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c[...]@@ -162,14 +183,19 @@ static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun4i_a10_pins[] = {SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "can"), /* RX */ SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x4, "uart1"), /* RING */ SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x5, "gmac", /* GNULL / ETXERR */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x6, "i2s1", /* DI */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), /* Hole */ SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 0), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), - SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "i2c0")), /* SCK */ + SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "i2c0"), /* SCK */ + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, + "pll-lock-dbg",Can you stick to underscores to be consistent?
OK... This is a so strange pin name and I just picked the datasheet name. I don't care how to name it as I don't even know what this is.
+ PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 1), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),@@ -177,11 +203,19 @@ static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun4i_a10_pins[] = {SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), - SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "pwm")), /* PWM0 */ + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ + PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 3), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), - SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "ir0"), /* TX */ + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "ir0", /* TX */ + PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm0", /* PWM1 */The numbering is wrong. Just drop the number altogether, like all the other instances.+ PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40), /* * The SPDIF block is not referenced at all in the A10 user * manual. However it is described in the code leaked and the@@ -205,7 +239,8 @@ static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun4i_a10_pins[] = {SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s", /* MCLK */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s0", /* MCLK */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40),Maybe we could use "i2s" instead, like on the A10. I don't know where i2s1 is used, but it certainly isn't routed outside the SoC, and i2s2 looks like it's for dw-hdmi's audio path.
Nope, it's routed at PA bank, see pins start at PA14. Changing this name will also break existing A20 device trees, if any of them use I2S.
SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "ac97")), /* MCLK */ SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 6), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),[...]@@ -237,31 +275,41 @@ static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun4i_a10_pins[] = {SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s", /* DO1 */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s0", /* DO1 */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40), + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x4, "pwm", /* PWM6 */ + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 10), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s", /* DO2 */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s0", /* DO2 */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40), + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x4, "pwm", /* PWM7 */ + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 11), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s", /* DO3 */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s0", /* DO3 */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 12), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s", /* DI */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "i2s0", /* DI */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "ac97"), /* DI */ /* Undocumented mux function on A10 - See SPDIF MCLK above */ - SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x4, "spdif")), /* SPDIF IN */ + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x4, "spdif", /* SPDIF IN */ + PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 13), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),@@ -308,7 +356,9 @@ static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun4i_a10_pins[] = {You missed PWM4 and PWM5 on pins PB20 and PB21.SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "uart0"), /* TX */ - SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "ir1")), /* TX */ + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "ir1", /* TX */ + PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)), SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 23), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),[...]@@ -916,7 +1000,10 @@ static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun4i_a10_pins[] = {SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pata", /* ATAD12 */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "emac", /* ETXD1 */ - PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), + PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20 | + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40), + SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x5, "sim", /* DET */ + PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40),This is available on all 3 variants. Should we consider sending a fix for this first? The hardware backing this pin is not supported, but it would be less confusing to fix it first instead of introducing a function for all variants in a patch supposedly for just the R40.
OK. But if we do so I think I should delay this patch until the A10-A20 driver merge is applied...
SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x4, "keypad"), /* IN6 */ SUNXI_FUNCTION_IRQ(0x6, 16), /* EINT16 */ SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x7, "csi1")), /* D16 */[...] Looks good otherwise. Regards ChenYu _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
-- 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
