On 20/05/15 16:40, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:46:07PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 19/05/15 15:46, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> Old Signed by an unknown key
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 04:33:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> Background:
>>>> ==========
>>>> On tegra124 and tegra132 devices the pads used by the Display Port Auxiliary
>>>> (DPAUX) channel are multiplexed such that they can also be used by one of the
>>>> internal i2c controllers. Note that this is different from i2c-over-AUX
>>>> supported by the DPAUX controller. The register that configures these pads is
>>>> part of the DPAUX controllers register set and so requires the clock for the
>>>> DPAUX controller to be enabled to access the register as well as keeping the
>>>> SOR (serial output resource) power domain enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, there is no pinctrl device for these pads and so cannot be easily
>>>> mapped to function as an i2c interface. Furthermore, when using the pads for
>>>> the DPAUX channel, the DPAUX driver (drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dpaux.c) directly
>>>> writes the to appropriate register to setup the pads.
>>>>
>>>> There are some products based upon the tegra132 that use these pads for an
>>>> internal i2c controller and hence we want to support this configuration in the
>>>> kernel.
>>>
>>> Good timing, I was going to (reluctantly) add this to my long TODO list.
>>> I generally like the proposal.
>>
>> Ok, great.
>>
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> ========
>>>> Add a DPAUX MFD device that consists of a DPAUX controller, for the Display
>>>> Port Auxiliary related functionality and a DPAUX pad controller, for handling
>>>> the pinctrl for the DPAUX pads. Both the DPAUX controller and DPAUX pad
>>>> controller need to access the DPAUX register set and therefore, by making the
>>>> MFD compatible with "simple-mfd" and "syscon", a regmap for the DPAUX registers
>>>> will be created to synchronise register accesses made by the drivers.
>>>
>>> Can we not do without an MFD here? Not only would it break DT ABI, but
>>> it's also way more complicated than it needs to be in my opinion, we're
>>> only sharing a single register (or perhaps even two) after all. Keeping
>>> everything in a single DT node would also make the binding less awkward
>>> because the power domain doesn't apply to the pad controller part of
>>> DPAUX.
>>>
>>> Can't the dpaux driver simply register the pinmux controller itself?
>>
>> Do you think something that looks like the below?
>>
>> +Example (tegra124 DPAUX):
>> +
>> +/ {
>> + ...
>> +
>> + host1x {
>> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-host1x", "simple-bus";
>> + ...
>> +
>> + dpaux: dpaux@0,545c0000 {
>> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-dpaux",
>> + reg = <0x0 0x545c0000 0x0 0x40000>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 159 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA124_CLK_DPAUX>,
>> + <&tegra_car TEGRA124_CLK_PLL_DP>;
>> + clock-names = "dpaux", "parent";
>> + resets = <&tegra_car 181>;
>> + reset-names = "dpaux";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&dpaux_state>;
>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>> + status = "disabled";
>> +
>> + dpaux_padctl@0,545c0124 {
>> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-dpaux-padctl";
>> +
>> + dpaux_state: dpaux_state0 {
>> + dpaux {
>> + nvidia,function = "dpaux";
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> + i2c_state: i2c_state0 {
>> + i2c {
>> + nvidia,function = "i2c";
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>
> Why even have this subnode? Couldn't we simply have this:
>
> host1x@... {
> ...
>
> dpaux@... {
> compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-dpaux";
> ...
> pinctrl-0 = <&dpaux_aux_state>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&dpaux_i2c_state>;
> pinctrl-names = "aux", "i2c";
> ...
>
> dpaux_aux_state: pinmux-aux {
> ...
> };
>
> dpaux_i2c_state: pinmux-i2c {
> ...
> };
> };
> };
>
> ?
>
> We might need to add in indices to tell apart DPAUX and DPAUX1, though
> perhaps we could refer to these states by path instead of phandle to
> avoid that. Anyway, I don't see any particular reason why a subnode
> would be necessary.
My thinking was that we would have a pinctrl driver for dpaux in
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra-dpaux.c and therefore, I had assumed that
we would need a sub-node and compatible string to probe the device.
Are you sugguesting that the pinctrl driver for dpaux lives in
drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dpaux.c?
Sorry if I am misunderstanding something here.
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
