On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 08:50:36AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 4:43 AM Cristian Ciocaltea > <cristian.ciocaltea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:03:09PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:16:18PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > > > Add pinctrl and gpio bindings for Actions Semi S500 SoC. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../pinctrl/actions,s500-pinctrl.yaml | 228 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 228 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/actions,s500-pinctrl.yaml > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/actions,s500-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/actions,s500-pinctrl.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..856947c70844 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/actions,s500-pinctrl.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/actions,s500-pinctrl.yaml# > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +title: Actions Semi S500 SoC pinmux & GPIO controller > > > > + > > > > +maintainers: > > > > + - Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > + > > > > +description: | > > > > + Pinmux & GPIO controller manages pin multiplexing & configuration including > > > > + GPIO function selection & GPIO attributes configuration. Please refer to > > > > + pinctrl-bindings.txt in this directory for common binding part and usage. > > > > + > > > > +properties: > > > > + compatible: > > > > + const: actions,s500-pinctrl > > > > + > > > > + reg: > > > > + minItems: 1 > > > > + maxItems: 4 > > > > > > Need to enumerate what each register range is. > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > Thanks for the review! > > > > Would the update below suffice? > > > > reg: > > description: | > > Specifies the memory region(s) associated with the pin-controller. > > To improve granularity, up to four register ranges can be provided: > > What does 'improve granularity' mean: Technically all the registers used by the driver could be specified via a single contiguous range. However, there are a few unrelated registers (i.e. PWM Output Control) which should be excluded in order to come up with a more accurate specification. The 4 ranges below are basically the result of this exclusion: > > * GPIO Output + GPIO Input + GPIO Data > > * Multiplexing Control > > * PAD Pull Control + PAD Schmitt Trigger enable + PAD Control > > * PAD Drive Capacity Select > > The h/w sometimes has these and sometimes doesn't? No, the h/w is fixed, the only reason of this approach was to allow a precise memory region specification, as explained above. I'm not sure if this should be made mandatory or it's also fine to let (a lazy) user provide combined ranges or just a contiguous one (like in the example), with the drawback of loosing the accuracy, of course. > If they do stay, then you want: > > items: > - description: GPIO Output + GPIO Input + GPIO Data > - description: ... Would this be applicable even if we keep this flexible approach and don't set 'minItems: 4'? > > > > > > + > > > > + clocks: > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > + > > > > + gpio-controller: true > > > > + > > > > + gpio-ranges: > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > + > > > > + '#gpio-cells': > > > > + description: > > > > + Specifies the pin number and flags, as defined in > > > > + include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h > > > > + const: 2 > > > > + > > > > + interrupt-controller: true > > > > + > > > > + '#interrupt-cells': > > > > + description: > > > > + Specifies the pin number and flags, as defined in > > > > + include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h > > > > + const: 2 > > > > + > > > > + interrupts: > > > > + description: > > > > + One interrupt per each of the 5 GPIO ports supported by the controller, > > > > + sorted by port number ascending order. > > > > + minItems: 5 > > > > + maxItems: 5 > > > > + > > > > +patternProperties: > > > > + '^.*$': > > > > + if: > > > > + type: object > > > > > > For a new binding, can you do '-pins$' for the node names so we don't > > > need this if/then hack. > > > > Right, the idea was to be consistent with the existing bindings for > > S700 and S900, which allow free node names, although they are not yet > > converted to yaml format. > > If we want consistency, those should have their node names updated. Fair enough, I have already updated the node names to use the '-pins' suffix. > > > > > > + then: > > > > + patternProperties: > > > > + 'pinmux$': > > > > > > Is this really a pattern? Can't tell from the example. > > > > pinmux and pinconf subnodes may appear multiple times, that's why I > > decided to match their names based on the suffix. > > > > The example is not complex enough, I will change it to the following: > > > > mmc0_default: mmc0_default { > > pinmux { > > groups = "sd0_d0_mfp", "sd0_d1_mfp", "sd0_d2_d3_mfp", > > "sd0_cmd_mfp", "sd0_clk_mfp"; > > function = "sd0"; > > }; > > > > drv_pinconf { > > drv-pinconf > > Make the pattern '-?pinconf' to enforce that. (that '-' may need escaping?) Actually the pattern should be '^(.*-)?pinconf$', to restrict the names to either 'pinconf' or '<label>-pinconf'. I have just made some more validation tests and noticed I had missed an 'additionalProperties: false' line, for the 'pins' node. Should be fine now! Thanks, Cristi
