On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:21:33PM +0200, Drew Fustini wrote:
> Hello Haojian and Linus,
>
> For pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() in drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c,
> I see that num_maps is set to 2 if PCS_HAS_PINCONF is enabled:
>
> 1057 if (PCS_HAS_PINCONF && function) {
> 1058 res = pcs_parse_pinconf(pcs, np, function, map);
> 1059 if (res)
> 1060 goto free_pingroups;
> 1061 *num_maps = 2;
> 1062 } else {
> 1063 *num_maps = 1;
> 1064 }
> 1065 mutex_unlock(&pcs->mutex);
>
> git blame shows me that came from 9dddb4df90d13:
> "pinctrl: single: support generic pinconf"
>
> Would you be able to provide any insight as to num_maps needs to be 2
> when pinconf is enabled?
>
> thank you,
> drew
The BeagleBone fails to boot when I change the am33xx_pinmux compatible
from "pinctrl,single" to "pinconf,single":
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
index 5ed7f3c58c0f..b5bedd776ee6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ scm: scm@0 {
ranges = <0 0 0x2000>;
am33xx_pinmux: pinmux@800 {
- compatible = "pinctrl-single";
+ compatible = "pinconf-single";
reg = <0x800 0x238>;
#pinctrl-cells = <1>;
pinctrl-single,register-width = <32>;
>From the full dmesg output [0], these lines seem the most relevant:
[ 2.974958] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: 142 pins, size 568
[ 3.847475] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x160 value: 0x2f
[ 3.855556] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xfc value: 0x30
[ 3.863520] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xf8 value: 0x30
[ 3.871483] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xf4 value: 0x30
[ 3.879444] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xf0 value: 0x30
[ 3.887404] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x104 value: 0x30
[ 3.895455] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x100 value: 0x30
[ 3.903505] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x1a0 value: 0x2c
[ 3.911583] pinctrl core: add 2 pinctrl maps
[ 3.915976] pinctrl core: failed to register map default (1): invalid type given
[ 3.923594] omap_hsmmc: probe of 48060000.mmc failed with error -22
[ 3.930403] omap_hsmmc 47810000.mmc: GPIO lookup for consumer cd
[ 4.440389] Waiting for root device /dev/mmcblk0p1...
The error message:
"pinctrl core: failed to register map default (1): invalid type given"
comes from drivers/pinctrl/core.c:
1387 int pinctrl_register_mappings(const struct pinctrl_map *maps,
1388 unsigned num_maps)
1389 {
1390 int i, ret;
1391 struct pinctrl_maps *maps_node;
1392
1393 pr_debug("add %u pinctrl maps\n", num_maps);
1394
1395 /* First sanity check the new mapping */
1396 for (i = 0; i < num_maps; i++) {
<snip>
1416 switch (maps[i].type) {
1417 case PIN_MAP_TYPE_DUMMY_STATE:
1418 break;
1419 case PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP:
1420 ret = pinmux_validate_map(&maps[i], i);
1421 if (ret < 0)
1422 return ret;
1423 break;
1424 case PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN:
1425 case PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_GROUP:
1426 ret = pinconf_validate_map(&maps[i], i);
1427 if (ret < 0)
1428 return ret;
1429 break;
1430 default:
1431 pr_err("failed to register map %s (%d): invalid type given\n",
1432 maps[i].name, i);
1433 return -EINVAL;
1434 }
1435 }
The invalid type error occurs when maps[i].type does not match any of
the case statements.
I have determined the system will boot ok [1] when num_maps is forced
to be 1. Here are the related dmesg lines:
[ 3.920484] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x160 value: 0x2f
[ 3.928420] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xfc value: 0x30
[ 3.936224] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xf8 value: 0x30
[ 3.944026] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xf4 value: 0x30
[ 3.951826] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0xf0 value: 0x30
[ 3.959627] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x104 value: 0x30
[ 3.967515] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x100 value: 0x30
[ 3.975403] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: pinmux-mmc0-pins index: 0x1a0 value: 0x2c
[ 3.983318] pinctrl core: add 1 pinctrl maps
[ 3.987653] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: found group selector 4 for pinmux-mmc0-pins
[ 3.995723] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 88 (PIN88) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.003434] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 63 (PIN63) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.011141] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 62 (PIN62) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.018847] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 61 (PIN61) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.026633] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 60 (PIN60) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.034351] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 65 (PIN65) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.042065] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 64 (PIN64) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.049774] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: request pin 104 (PIN104) for 48060000.mmc
[ 4.057662] pinctrl-single 44e10800.pinmux: enabling (null) function4
Here is the patch for num_maps:
diiff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index 1e0614daee9b..78a93336c711 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ static int pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device *pcs,
res = pcs_parse_pinconf(pcs, np, function, map);
if (res)
goto free_pingroups;
- *num_maps = 2;
+ *num_maps = 1;
} else {
*num_maps = 1;
}
I am trying to understand why num_maps is supposed to be 2 when
PCS_HAS_PINCONF, and I would appreciate any comments.
Is there a bug somewhere in the code?
Or, is it supposed to be invalid to enable "pinconf,single" compatible
for the am33xx_pinmux node?
thank you,
drew
[0] https://gist.github.com/pdp7/293716fe98d90f031bb75950803952a1
[1] https://gist.github.com/pdp7/fc5186f46e34c3acc1b1a169be85d3a9
Re: pinctrl-single: num_maps in generic pinconf support?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: pinctrl-single: num_maps in generic pinconf support?
- From: Drew Fustini <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 19:55:44 +0200
- In-reply-to: <20200526122133.GA1454440@x1>
- References: <20200526122133.GA1454440@x1>
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: pinctrl-single: num_maps in generic pinconf support?
- From: Drew Fustini
- Re: pinctrl-single: num_maps in generic pinconf support?
- Prev by Date: linusw/fixes boot: 56 boots: 1 failed, 55 passed (v5.7-rc6-9-ge9bdf7e655b9)
- Next by Date: [PATCH v2 2/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Document optional BCM7211 wake-up interrupts
- Previous by thread: linusw/fixes boot: 56 boots: 1 failed, 55 passed (v5.7-rc6-9-ge9bdf7e655b9)
- Next by thread: Re: pinctrl-single: num_maps in generic pinconf support?
- Index(es):
 |