Re: [PATCH 1/4] pinctrl: Introduce generic #pinctrl-cells and pinctrl_parse_index_with_args

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [161027 00:57]:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> 
> I need some DT person to take a look at this binding and ACK it.
> 
> > +For pin controller hardware with a large number of identical registers naming
> > +each bit both can be unmaintainable. Further there can be a large number of similar
> > +pinctrl hardware using the same registers for different purposes depending on the
> > +packaging. For cases like this, the pinctrl driver may use pinctrl-pin-array helper
> > +binding using a hardware based index and a number of configuration values:
> 
> Maybe we can reword it a bit so that it is clear that this is an
> either-or approach
> for the pin controller, either they use the pins/groups/functions scheme
> or they use this scheme.

Sure, this is just an optional helper.

> > +pincontroller {
> > +       ... /* Standard DT properties for the device itself elided */
> > +       #pinctrl-cells = <2>;
> > +
> > +       state_0_node_a {
> > +               pinctrl-pin-array = <
> > +                       0 A_DELAY_PS(0) G_DELAY_PS(120)
> > +                       4 A_DELAY_PS(0) G_DELAY_PS(360)
> > +                       ...
> > +               >;
> > +       };
> > +       ...
> > +};
> 
> Looks all right to me. Sad to add to the binding mess, but on the other
> hand, in the overall picture this nicely consolidates and structure
> pinctrl-single.
> 
> > +The index for pinctrl-pin-array must relate to the hardware for the pinctrl
> > +registers, and must not be a virtual index of pin instances. The reason for
> > +this is to avoid mapping of the index in the dts files and the pin controller
> > +driver as it can change.
> 
> OK
> 
> > And we want to avoid another case of interrupt
> > +numbering with pinctrl numbering.
> 
> Maybe this file is not a good place for making technical arguments,
> more describing what we agreed on, so cut that sentence IMO.

Sure :)

> > +/*
> > + * For pinctrl binding, typically #pinctrl-cells is for the pin controller
> > + * device, so either parent or grandparent. See pinctrl-bindings.txt.
> > + */
> > +static int pinctrl_find_cells_size(const struct device_node *np,
> > +                                  const char *cells_name)
> > +{
> > +       int cells_size, error;
> > +
> > +       error = of_property_read_u32(np->parent, cells_name, &cells_size);
> > +       if (error) {
> > +               error = of_property_read_u32(np->parent->parent,
> > +                                            cells_name, &cells_size);
> > +               if (error)
> > +                       return -ENOENT;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return cells_size;
> > +}
> 
> Can't we just hardcode this to "#pinctrl-cells" and skip the cells_name
> parameter? We can parametrize it the day we need it instead.

Sure we can do that.

> The rest of the helpers look nice and clean.

OK cool thanks,

Tony