On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy <yendapally.reddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy >> <yendapally.reddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> +static const unsigned int gpio_0_1_pins[] = {24, 25}; >>> +static const unsigned int pwm_0_pins[] = {24}; >>> +static const unsigned int pwm_1_pins[] = {25}; >> >> So either the same pins are used for GPIO or PWM. >> And this pattern persists. >> >> Do you have a brewing GPIO driver for this block as well? >> Is it a separate front-end calling to pinctrl using the >> pinctrl_gpio_* calls or do you plan to patch it into this >> driver? >> >> This is more of a question. >> > > This SoC supports group based configuration and there is a top level register > to select groups. Once the gpio_0_1_pins group is selected, there is one more > register to select between gpio_0_1 and pwm (only four pins). The pins > 24 and 25 are shared between nor pins and gpio at the top group level. Once > gpio group is selected, then we can select to be either gpio or pwm. I missed > these two pins to be added to nor_data_pins and will add in the next version. > > static const unsigned nor_data_pins[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, > 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25}; > > NS2_PIN_GROUP(nand, 0, 0, 31, 1, 0), > NS2_PIN_GROUP(nor_data, 0, 0, 31, 1, 1), > NS2_PIN_GROUP(gpio_0_1, 0, 0, 31, 1, 0), > > To select PWM, we need to select gpio and pwm as well. > > gpio: gpio { > function = "gpio"; > groups = "gpio_0_1_grp"; > > pwm: pwm { > function = "pwm"; > groups = "pwm0_grp", "pwm1_grp"; > }; > > Already available gpio driver "pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c" will be the gpio driver > for this soc as well without pin request. Then you are doing something wrong. Look in pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c: /* * Request the Iproc IOMUX pinmux controller to mux individual pins to GPIO */ static int iproc_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset) { struct iproc_gpio *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc); unsigned gpio = gc->base + offset; /* not all Iproc GPIO pins can be muxed individually */ if (!chip->pinmux_is_supported) return 0; return pinctrl_request_gpio(gpio); } static void iproc_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset) { struct iproc_gpio *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc); unsigned gpio = gc->base + offset; if (!chip->pinmux_is_supported) return; pinctrl_free_gpio(gpio); } So as you see pinctrl_request_gpio() and pinctrl_free_gpio() are being called. These will in turn call pinmux_request_gpio() and pinmux_free_gpio() to make the backing pin controller mux in the pin as GPIO. pinmux_request_gpio() will end up in pin_request() and at this point: if (gpio_range && ops->gpio_request_enable) /* This requests and enables a single GPIO pin */ status = ops->gpio_request_enable(pctldev, gpio_range, pin); As you can see: it will attempt to call the .gpio_request_enable() method of your struct pinmux_ops. But your pinmux ops look like this: +static struct pinmux_ops ns2_pinmux_ops = { + .get_functions_count = ns2_get_functions_count, + .get_function_name = ns2_get_function_name, + .get_function_groups = ns2_get_function_groups, + .set_mux = ns2_pinmux_enable, +}; I.e. there is no way that GPIO can be set up as a GPIO line, and you're relying on some other pin control entries in the device tree to do that, which is unnecessarily complicated. Please consider implementing the .gpio_request_enable callback for this pin multiplexer. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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