On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Levin Du <djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
No. Once you are describing individual register bits, it is too low
level for DT.
> 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
--
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
