* Drew Fustini <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [200917 10:39]: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:00:36AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 2:20 AM Drew Fustini <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:03:46AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:44 AM Drew Fustini <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > +When #pinctrl-cells = 2, then setting a pin for a device could be done with: > > > > > + > > > > > + pinctrl-single,pins = <0xdc 0x30 0x07>; > > > > > + > > > > > +Where 0x30 is the pin configuration value and 0x07 is the pin mux mode value. > > > > > +See the device example and static board pins example below for more information. > > > > > > > > Pin configuration and mux mode don't mean anything in pinctrl-single. > > > > On another machine, mux mode might not be programmed this way or even > > > > exist. Or the location of bits would probably be different, and this > > > > would seem to imply the 0x07 would get shifted to the correct location > > > > for where the pin mux setting was on that machine's pinctrl registers. > > > > > > > > It seems like it would be better to explain the values are ORed together. > > > > > > I descirbed it as seoerate values as I did not want to prescribe what > > > the pcs driver would do with those values. But, yes, it is a just an OR > > > operation, so I could change the language to reflect tat. > > > > If you don't say what the pinctrl-single driver does with the values, > > how would anyone know how to use it? > > > > > > What is the purpose of this change anyway? It seems like in the end > > > > it just does what it did before. The data is now split into two cells > > > > in the device tree, but why? > > > > > > These changes were a result of desire to seperate pinconf and pinmux. > > > Tony raised the idea in a thread at the end of May [1]. > > > > > > Tony wrote: > > > > Only slightly related, but we should really eventually move omaps to use > > > > #pinctrl-cells = <2> (or 3) instead of 1, and pass the pinconf seprately > > > > from the mux mode. We already treat them separately with the new > > > > AM33XX_PADCONF macro, so we'd only have to change one SoC at a time to > > > > use updated #pinctrl-cells. But I think pinctrl-single might need some > > > > changes before we can do that. > > > > I still don't see what the goal is here. Support generic pinconf? > > My interest is came out of my desire to turn on generic pinconf for AM3358 > and I had to fix a bug that was breaking compatible "pinconf,single": > f46fe79ff1b6 ("pinctrl-single: fix pcs_parse_pinconf() return value") > > > Also note that while AM33XX_PADCONF() is changed, there is an in tree > > board that doesn't use it, so it's broken now. I found this change > > when it broke my out of tree board, due to the dtsi change not being > > reflected in my board's pinctrl values. > > Thanks, that is a good point that arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-guardian.dts > needs to be converted from AM33XX_IOPAD to AM33XX_PADCONF. I'll submit > a patch for that. > > Regarding AM33XX_PADCONF() restructuring, the change to have seperate > arguments for direction and mux in AM33XX_PADCONF() predates my > invovlement, so I've CC'd Christina Quast. > > commit f1ff9be7652b716c7eea67c9ca795027d911f148 > Author: Christina Quast <cquast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Apr 8 10:01:51 2019 -0700 > > ARM: dts: am33xx: Added AM33XX_PADCONF macro > > AM33XX_PADCONF takes three instead of two parameters, to make > future changes to #pinctrl-cells easier. > > For old boards which are not mainlined, we left the AM33XX_IOPAD > macro. > > Signed-off-by: Christina Quast <cquast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hopefully, Tony can also chime in. Also FYI, folks have also complained for a long time that the pinctrl-single binding mixes mux and conf values while they should be handled separately. Regards, Tony