Pinmux bindings proposal V2

[Tony Lindgren]

* Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com> [120124 14:02]:
> Tony Lindgren wrote at Monday, January 23, 2012 6:21 PM:
> > * Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com> [120123 14:37]:
> > > Tony Lindgren wrote at Monday, January 23, 2012 2:01 PM:
> > > > This mostly looks pretty good to me, few more comments below.
> ...
> > > > >                 pmx_sdhci_active: pinconfig-sdhci-active {
> > > > >                         /*
> > > > >                          * In each of these nodes, both the mux and config
> > > > >                          * properties are optional. This node represents the
> > > > >                          * additions to pmx_sdhci that are specific to an
> > > > >                          * active state. In this case, only pin configuration
> > > > >                          * settings are different.
> > > > >                          */
> > > > >                         config =
> > > > >                                 <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 0>
> > > > >                                 <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 0>;
> > > > >                 };
> > > > >                 pmx_sdhci_standby: pinconfig-sdhci-standby {
> > > > >                         config =
> > > > >                                 <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>
> > > > >                                 <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>;
> > > > >                 };
> > > >
> > > > After thinking about this a bit more, I'm now thinking that we should
> > > > probably only describe the active state in the device tree to keep things
> > > > simple.
> > > >
> > > > Anything PM related could be initialized later on during the boot by the
> > > > device driver, or even from userspace using /lib/firmware or /sys entries.
> > > > This would cut down the device tree bloat quite a bit.
> > >
> > > I think it makes sense to describe everything in one place. It's much
> > > easier to ensure everything is consistent and correct if you don't have
> > > to cross-check two sources of data for the same thing.
> > 
> > But we end up repeating the same bits over and over again making the device
> > tree bloated.
> 
> What exactly gets repeated; can you please show an example?

Well in your example, you have TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA and TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD
repeated. It seems you're trying to list slightly different register
values for the the pincontrol modes with pmx_sdhci_active and
pmx_sdhci_standby.

IMHO already that list of mux states seems limited as you may need to
list other driver states too like pmx_sdhci_standby_wake_up_disabled and
pmx_sdhci_standby_off. So it starts to sound a bit like PM policy instead
of letting the driver know what hardware is on the system.

Having multiple config options also means that you end up setting
#pinconfig-cell to something unnecessarily large for all mux nodes even
if you only need the alternative values for one pin on the system.

> Given that each named state can reference n nodes defining part of that
> state's pinmux configuration, and some of those nodes can affect the same
> pin controller, you can easily split the overall configuration into
> "stuff that's common for all states for this device" and "stuff that's
> common between these n states of the device but not these m others" and
> "stuff that's unique to this 1 state", and hence avoid repeating any
> identical information.
> 
> > I'm suspecting that the initial state can be used to set the PM states for
> > pins. Probably most pins can have the PM configuration set from the start.
> 
> Can you please explain more?

For the cases I know the default values work for 95% - 100% of the pins in
the system for PM also. Only few pins on some systems need to be dynamically
remuxed during the runtime. The rest of the pins can be discarded after init.

I'm also suggesting that that the bits that may need to change for dynamic
remuxing for PM are probably not board specific, they're typically things
like change something into GPIO input mode or pull something down to avoid
lines from floating for an external device. Things that the device driver
using the pins should be able to communicate to the pinconf/pinmux driver
via pin_config_* calls or runtime PM in a Linux generic way.

> > If dynamic muxing is needed, it should be for a very limited set of pins,
> > and that can be done in the drivers.
> 
> (and later, saying the same thing):
> > > > If we only allow describing the initial state in device tree, then we can
> > > > leave out pinctrl-names, and assume the setting is always the initial bootup
> > > > state desired.
> > >
> > > That's true, but people have already discussed the usefulness of having
> > > multiple named states, e.g. an SDHCI controller that needs different pin
> > > configuration (perhaps drive strength or slew rate?) depending on the
> > > clock rate of the SD interface itself.
> > 
> > Yes but those too should be doable from the device drivers using pin ctrl
> > framework calls. Usually it's just few pins that needs to change dynamically.
> 
> Do you mean drivers explicitly requesting that a named pin/group have
> some specific parameter set to some specific value?

Yes request pin/group directly or even better, just hook it to runtime PM
which allows implementing platform specific calls.
 
> That would make the peripheral driver have to know specific details of
> each SoC's pin controller. This isn't an issue for one-off IP, but if
> you've got some IP block that gets re-used in 2 or 3 different SoCs each
> with a SoC-vendor-specific pin controller, then the driver is going to
> have to know those same details 3 times over, which is pretty much exactly
> what we're trying to avoid by abstracting the details out of the drivers
> and into a common binding that's handled by the pinctrl subsystem.
> 
> > > > Setting the initial state from device tree makes sense, but I'm afraid
> > > > the standby and off states will require driver interaction depending on
> > > > how the user wants to configure the system.
> > > >
> > > > For example, allowing a device to wake up a system might be user
> > > > configurable option, such as "Wake up on tapping the touchscreen".
> > >
> > > That can be supported pretty easily.
> > >
> > > The driver for a simple device can require two named states: "active"
> > > and "standby". In your more complex example, the driver can require
> > > three named states: "active", "standby", "standby-wake". During suspend,
> > > it'll simply select the appropriate of the latter two states based on
> > > user request.
> > >
> > > You can even retrofit this capability to a previously simple driver that
> > > Originally did:
> > >
> > > suspend() {
> > >     pinconf_select(dev, "suspend");
> > > }
> > >
> > > To make it do the following instead:
> > >
> > > suspend() {
> > >     if (wake)
> > >         state = "suspend-wake";
> > >     else
> > >         state = "suspend-nowake";
> > >     err = pinconf_select(dev, state);
> > >     if (err < 0)
> > >         pinconf_select(dev, "suspend";
> > > }
> > >
> > > ... which should allow old device trees to work fine, but new device
> > > trees to specify a different if they need.
> > 
> > You can do just the same from a driver with something like:
> > 
> > 	...
> > 	res = pin_config_set_for_pin(pctldev, pin, PIN_STATE_SUSPEND);
> > 	...
> > 
> > As long as the pinconf/pinmux driver knows how to set PIN_STATE_SUSPEND
> > for one entry. Note that I've avoided using pin_config_set here because
> > there really should not be any string parsing needed except during driver
> > init for doing things like this during runtime..
> 
> In order to implement pin_config_set_for_pin(), you still need some
> source of data defining what PIN_STATE_SUSPEND means. I has been suggested
> to defer that knowledge into each individual pin controller driver, but
> since this is probably board-specific in general, that means that each
> pin controller driver then needs to parse the data from device tree, so
> we end up with exactly the same data in device tree, just represented in
> a different way for each SoC vendor. To me, that's exactly what the pinctrl
> subsystem and common pinctrl DT bindings are trying to avoid.

It's usually the information about which pins to use and pull values that are
board specific. They can depend on external pull resistors on the board etc.

For the PM related things the predefined states can be Linux generic and
implemented by the pinconf/pinmux drivers easily.
 
> > > > Then I'd rather not use "config" at all, and just put the value for
> > > > initial state mux register(s) in the mux to avoid repeating the same data
> > > > multiple time. Looks like with the mux + config/mux-config option you
> > > > need to duplicate at least TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, maybe the name "config" should probably be "mux-config" instead?
> > >
> > > Mux and config are two unrelated things though. Mux is the function
> > > (signal, alternate function, mission mode, ...) that is selected for
> > > the pin/group in question. Config is anything else, but explicitly not
> > > mux, such as pull-up, pull-down, tri-state, drive-strength, etc.
> > 
> > Right, but how many registers are you really writing to? In the cases
> > I've seen it's mostly just one register. In some cases it can be three
> > tree registers per mux, but only one would change during runtime
> > potentially.
> 
> For each pin group on Tegra20, there are 1, 2, or 3 registers that affect
> it. In most cases, each register contains fields that affect multiple pin
> groups. On Tegra30, there is 1:1 mapping between registers and pin groups.

I see, thanks for clarifying that.
 
> > > > So to summarize: I suggest we'll just stick to basics to get the system
> > > > booting and devices working using device tree. In most cases the device
> > > > drivers should be able to configure the suspend and off states in a generic
> > > > way using pinctrl API. Everything else, like debugging, we can probably
> > > > do with userspace tools.
> > >
> > > But how will they configure suspend/off states in a generic way using the
> > > pinctrl API if the pinctrl API has no way of knowing how to configure the
> > > pins in suspend...
> > 
> > We can have a set of defined states that the pinmux/pinconf drivers can
> > implement. Then have functions to get/set a mux or a mux group. And then
> > the triggering could be hooked up into pm_runtime calls just like clock
> > framework calls.
> 
> Does runtime PM allow drivers to request arbitrary states, i.e. make up
> device-specific state names? I must admit I'm not at all familiar with it,
> but I'd expect it supports "active" and "inactive", whereas to support the
> SDHCI controller example that's been mentioned, it'd need to support
> "active 24MHz", "active 40MHz", "inactive" (the exact clock rates I use in
> this example may be wrong).

Hmm, I don't think you need device-specifc state names there. It sounds
like you would want to map the device-specific pin states in your
pinconf/pinmux driver. Then the device driver using the pins can have pin
state changes triggered based on pm_runtime_* calls.

The pm_runtime-* calls will find their way to clock framework and mux code
if the bus layer is implemented that way. For the various clock rates it
sounds like you should probably add few clock nodes to the clock framwork?

Maybe the driver itself should select between 24MHz and 40MHz clock using
clk_set_rate, then have pm_runtime_get/put toggle the clock on and off.
Then you could also hook the active vs inactive state change to happen
based on selected pm_runtime_* calls in the bus layer as it should know
what the next state transition is. So really no code needed in the SDHCI
driver except to add pm_runtime_get/put calls for the remuxing.

Regards,

Tony