On 2018-05-10 8:50 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 10/05/18 10:16, djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Levin Du <djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Adding a new gpio controller named "gpio-syscon10" to rk3328, providing
access to the pins defined in the syscon GRF_SOC_CON10.
This is the GPIO_MUTE pin, right? The public TRM is rather vague, but
cross-referencing against the datasheet and schematics implies that
it's the "gpiomut_*" part of the GRF bit names which is most significant.
It might be worth using a more descriptive name here, since "syscon10"
is pretty much meaningless at the board level.
Robin.
Previously I though other bits might be able to reference from syscon10,
other than GPIO_MUTE alone.
If it is renamed to gpio-mute, then the GPIO_MUTE pin is accessed as
`<&gpio-mute 1>`. Yet other
bits in syscon10 can also be referenced, say, `<&gpio-mute 10>`, which
is not good.
I'd like to add a `gpio,syscon-bit` property to gpio-syscon, which
overrides the properties
of bit_count, data_bit_offset and dir_bit_offset in the driver. For
example:
gpio_mute: gpio-mute {
compatible = "rockchip,gpio-syscon";
gpio-controller;
#gpio-cells = <2>;
gpio,syscon-dev = <0 0x0428 0>;
gpio,syscon-bit = <1 1 0>;
};
That way, the mute pin is strictly specified as <&gpio_mute 0>, and
<&gpio_mute 1> will be invalid.
I think that is neat, and consistent with the gpio_mute name.
Thanks
Levin
--
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
