Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: tegra-xusb: Correct lane mux options

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/10/15 17:08, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 05:28 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 16/10/15 17:17, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2015 03:24 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> The description of the XUSB_PADCTL_USB3_PAD_MUX_0 register in the
>>>> Tegra124
>>>> documentation implies that all functions (pcie, usb3 and sata) can be
>>>> muxed onto to all lanes (pcie lanes 0-4 and sata lane 0). However,
>>>> it has
>>>> been confirmed that this is not the case and the mux'ing options much
>>>> more
>>>> limited. Unfortunately, the public documentation has not been
>>>> updated to
>>>> reflect this and so detail the actual mux'ing options here by function:
>>>
>>> FWIW, there's better documentation of this in the Tegra210 TRM, although
>>> the options have been expanded on that chip, so the docs don't entirely
>>> apply to Tegra124.
>>>
>>>> Function:        Lanes:
>>>> pcie1 x2:        pcie3, pcie4
>>>> pcie1 x4:        pcie1, pcie2, pcie3, pcie4
>>>> pcie2 x1 (option1):    pcie0
>>>> pcie2 x1 (option2):    pcie2
>>>> usb3 port 0:        pcie0
>>>> usb3 port 1 (option 1):    pcie1
>>>> usb3 port 1 (option 2):    sata0
>>>> sata:            sata0
>>>
>>> I think this change needs a DT binding change to go along with it. Can
>>> you take a look at:
>>>
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg449647.html
>>> [PATCH 1/2] dt: update Tegra XUSB padctl binding for Tegra210
>>
>> I took a look at the above and it looks fine to me. Do you want me to
>> put the above info into the DT binding doc? I am not sure that we need
>> to update the binding itself.
> 
> Hmm. I guess there /should/ be no need for the DT bindings to list out
> all the valid combinations; it should just say "go read the HW docs". Of
> course as you mentioned our HW docs aren't quite as complete as they
> should be in this area, but still solving that in the DT binding doc may
> not be the best approach. But then again, the DT binding doc already
> lists which functions are valid for which groups of pins, but perhaps
> that's more about understanding the structure of the binding than the HW.

I had thought about trying to put the options in the tegra124.dtsi, but
I am not sure if there is an easy way to do that without having ...

	padctl@0,7009f000 {
		...

		padctl_option1: pinmux {
			usb3 {...};		
			pcie {...};
			sata {...};
		};
		padctl_option2: pinmux {
			usb3 {...};
			pcie {...};
			sata {...};
		};
		...
		padctl_optionN: pinmux {
			usb3 {...};
			pcie {...};
			sata {...};
		};
	};

... that would be a long-ish list. Unless there is a better way to do it?

> I guess I'll leave it up to you which way to go. Perhaps let's not
> pursue adding this to the binding doc until we get the PHY-per-lane
> changes in place or rejected or the two changes will conflict badly?

That's fine with me. Are you ok with this patch as-is going upstream for
now?

Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html