Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752390Ab3FZLmi (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:42:38 -0400 Received: from mail.abilis.ch ([195.70.19.74]:14968 "EHLO mail.abilis.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752189Ab3FZLmg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:42:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:42:01 +0200 From: Christian Ruppert To: Stephen Warren Cc: Linus Walleij , Patrice CHOTARD , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Sascha Leuenberger , Pierrick Hascoet , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Make non-linear GPIO ranges accesible from gpiolib Message-ID: <20130626114159.GA7095@ab42.lan> References: <20130618092516.GC18663@ab42.lan> <1371547751-13873-1-git-send-email-christian.ruppert@abilis.com> <51C1F531.3050205@wwwdotorg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <51C1F531.3050205@wwwdotorg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4169 Lines: 100 On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:15:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/19/2013 06:03 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Christian Ruppert > > wrote: > > > >> This patch adds the infrastructure required to register non-linear gpio > >> ranges through gpiolib and the standard GPIO device tree bindings. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Christian Ruppert > > > > I'm basically fine with this, but would like Stephen's ACK if possible. > > > >> +In addition, named groups of pins can be mapped to pin groups of a given > >> +pin controller: > >> + > >> + gpio_pio_g: gpio-controller@1480 { > >> + #gpio-cells = <2>; > >> + compatible = "fsl,qe-pario-bank-e", "fsl,qe-pario-bank"; > >> + reg = <0x1480 0x18>; > >> + gpio-controller; > >> + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl1 0 0 0>, <&pinctrl2 3 0 0>; > >> + gpio-ranges-group-names = "foo", "bar"; > >> + }; > >> + > >> +where, > >> + &pinctrl1 and &pinctrl2 is the phandle to the pinctrl DT node. > >> + > >> + The following value specifies the base GPIO offset of the pin range with > >> + respect to the GPIO controller's base. The remaining two values must be > >> + 0 to indicate that a named pin group should be used for the respective > >> + range. The number of pins in the range is the number of pins in the pin > >> + group. > > > > So while this works, these zeroes seem a bit awkward, but maybe > > it's the only way? > > > > I'm not good enough on device tree conventions, but isn't this possible: > > > > gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl1 0>, <&pinctrl2 3>; > > gpio-ranges-group-names = "foo", "bar"; > > > > Since we don't have any #gpio-ranges-cells or anything like that I > > guess we can define this to have a flexible number of cells > > depending on use case? > > If we're willing to have gpio-ranges be either *all* group names, or > *all* IDs, we can define the format of gpio-ranges to have two cells > (phandle and GPIO number) if the property gpio-ranges-group-names > exists, but four cells (phandle, GPIO number, pin number, count) > otherwise. However, that's a little restrictive, since then what if one > GPIO controller is hooked to two different pinmux controllers, and you > want to use different formats for the references to each. A > #gpio-ranges-cells in the target of the phandle would allow this, but I > don't think this is something the pinctrl node should dictate to those > who reference it; it's quite legitimate for a GPIO node to use the pure > numeric mapping even if the pin controller happens to expose some pin > groups that allow you to do the mapping by name. I actually had a version of the patch with #gpio-range-cells specifying the format (one argument for named ranges, three for classical ranges) before deciding to use a separate property and sending that version. As I said in a previous mail, I don't have a preference which of the following three possibilities to use and would be grateful for some guidance (if it matters at all). 1.) separate property: gpio { gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl1 0 0 5>; gpio-range-groups = <&pinctrl2 5>; gpio-range-group-names = "gpios"; }; 2.) fixed number of three arguments: gpio { gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl1 0 0 5>, <&pinctrl2 5 0 0>; gpio-range-names = "", "gpios"; }; 3.) pinctrl-defined format. pinctrl1: pctl1 { #gpio-range-cells = <3>; }; pinctrl2: pctl2 { #gpio-range-cells = <1>; }; gpio { gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl1 0 0 5>, <&pinctrl2 5>; gpio-range-names = "", "gpios"; }; -- Christian Ruppert , /| Tel: +41/(0)22 816 19-42 //| 3, Chemin du Pr?-Fleuri _// | bilis Systems CH-1228 Plan-les-Ouates -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/