Pinmux bindings proposal

Grant Likely grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Thu Jan 19 07:22:19 EST 2012


On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 08:29:43AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> [120118 07:00]:
> > * Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org> [120118 05:57]:
> > > On 18 January 2012 22:13, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > * Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> [120116 09:55]:
> > > >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:39:42PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > >> >                 pinmux =
> > > >> >                         <"default" &pmx_sdhci_active>
> > > >> >                         <"suspend" &pmx_sdhci_suspend>;
> > > >> >
> > > >> >                 /* 1:n example: */
> > > >> >                 pinmux =
> > > >> >                         <"default" &pmx_sdhci_mux_a>
> > > >> >                         <"default" &pmx_sdhci_pincfg_a>
> > > >> >                         <"suspend" &pmx_sdhci_mux_a>
> > > >> >                         <"suspend" &pmx_sdhci_pincfg_a_suspend>;
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, don't do this.  Mixing phandle, string and cell values in a
> > > >> property gets messy and could become troublesome to parse.  I've
> > > >> backed away from it in the clk binding.
> > > >
> > > > Yup, that's because the string is embedded directly into the mixed
> > > > mode array and will likely make the following data unaligned. That
> > > > means it's extremely flakey to parse, and will lead into horrible
> > > > errors if you have typos in the .dts file.. Tried that and gave up
> > > > on it.
> > > >
> > > > I think I've found a way to avoid using names at all, assuming we set
> > > > each pin as a phandle for the drivers to use :)
> > > >
> > > The problem with doing that is we will have to represent each pin as a
> > > node in device tree.  For imx6q case, we have 197 pins.  Doing so will
> > > bloat the device tree.
> > 
> > Sure there's some overhead. I've got it working with 220 pins, it's
> > not too bad as threre's not much string parsing involved.
> > 
> > I don't have all the devices mapping the pins though. The .dtb for
> > omap4 is about 25k now.
> > 
> > If we wanted to avoid adding phandles for each pin, then we could do:
> > 
> > serial at 0x48020000 {
> > 	compatible = "ti,8250";
> > 	reg = <0x48020000 0x100>;
> > 	reg-shift = <2>;
> > 	interrupts = <106>;
> > 
> > 	/* controller, offset, value */
> > 	pins = <&mux1 0xabcd 0x10
> >                 &mux1 0xabcf 0x0>;
> > };
> > 
> > But then the .dts file becomes an unreadable matrix unless we have
> > a preprocessor..
> 
> Forgot to mention that as long as we all standardize to use something
> common for #pin-args and of_parse_phandle_with_args(), the pin mapping
> could depend on the pinmux driver for selecting whether or not to use
> a phandle for each pin.

Yes, the actual layout parsing should remain in the control of the
pinmux controller like it does for irqs, gpios, etc.

g.


More information about the devicetree-discuss mailing list