On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 18:43 -0700, David Collins wrote:
> On 07/17/2014 08:25 AM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> > From: "Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This is the pinctrl, pinmux, pinconf and gpiolib driver for the
> > Qualcomm GPIO and MPP sub-function blocks found in the PMIC chips.
> > QPNP_REG_STATUS1_GPIO_EN_REV0_MASK
> > Signed-off-by: Ivan T. Ivanov <iivanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> (...)
> > +static int qpnp_conv_to_pin(struct qpnp_pinctrl *qctrl,
> > + struct qpnp_padinfo *pad, unsigned param,
> > + unsigned val)
> (...)
> > + switch (param) {
> (...)
> > + case PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT:
> > + nattrs = 3;
> > + attr[0].addr = QPNP_REG_MODE_CTL;
> > + attr[0].shift = QPNP_REG_OUT_SRC_SEL_SHIFT;
> > + attr[0].mask = QPNP_REG_OUT_SRC_SEL_MASK;
> > + attr[0].val = !!val;
>
> It seems that this patch provides no means to configure the output source
> select bits to be anything besides 0 (constant low) or 1 (constant high).
> Some non-generic property is needed to configure this for both GPIOs and
> MPPs. Passing the value in via the output-high property does not seem
> like a good approach since that is a generic pin config property that is
> defined to take no value.
True.
> The special functions available for GPIOs (e.g.
> PWM/LPG, clock, keypad, etc.) which are configured via this register are
> used by many boards.
I was not sure what those features are and how to connect the numbers to
the function, which is why I have restricted the values of 0 and 1.
>
> Something else to consider is that QPNP_REG_OUT_SRC_SEL_MASK is being
> defined as 0xf which would imply that there are 16 possible output source
> select options. While technically true, this makes the situation more
> complicated since half of those options are the inverted version of the
> other half. In the GPIO hardware this corresponds to an 8-way mux
> followed by an XOR gate to conditionally invert the mux output. If output
> source select is handled this way, then the following values would need to
> be supported in device tree for GPIOs:
> * 0: constant low (already supported via output-low;)
> * 1: constant high (already supported via output-high;)
> * 2: paired GPIO
> * 3: inverted paired GPIO
> * 4: special function 1
> * 5: inverted special function 1
> * 6: special function 2
> * 7: inverted special function 2
> * 8: dtest1
> * 9: inverted dtest1
> * 10: dtest2
> * 11: inverted dtest2
> * 12: dtest3
> * 13: inverted dtest3
> * 14: dtest4
> * 15: inverted dtest4
> The same options are supported by MPPs except for special function 1,
> inverted special function 1, special function 2, and inverted special
> function 2.
<snip>
I am working on proposal from Stephen Boyd to encode GPIO/MPP mode and
source select into combined function. Something like this one:
#define PM8XXX_DIGITAL_IN 0
#define PM8XXX_DIGITAL_OUT 1
#define PM8XXX_DIGITAL_IN_OUT 2
...
/* mode and source select */
#define PM8XXX_FUNCTION(m,s) ((m) << 16 | (s))
#define PM8921_GPIO1_14_KYPD_SNS PM8XXX_FUNCTION(PM8XXX_DIGITAL_IN, 1)
#define PM8921_GPIO9_14_KYPD_DRV PM8XXX_FUNCTION(PM8XXX_DIGITAL_OUT, 1)
#define PM8921_GPIO33_35_PWM PM8XXX_FUNCTION(PM8XXX_DIGITAL_OUT, 3)
..
<snip>
> There is an off-by-one issue with the indexing between the hardware GPIO
> numbers (1-based) and the gpiolib gpio offsets (0-based). Do you agree
> that the indexing used within the device tree gpiospecs should match the
> hardware numbering scheme? I feel like this would be much less confusing
> for users to work with.
Yep, will fix it. Thank you for review.
Regards,
Ivan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
