| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <51B3ECC9.9000906@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:47:37 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>
CC: Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Shiraz HASHIM <shiraz.hashim@...com>,
Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Sascha Leuenberger <sascha.leuenberger@...lis.com>,
Pierrick Hascoet <pierrick.hascoet@...lis.com>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinmux: Add TB10x pinmux driver
On 06/08/2013 02:31 AM, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 8 June 2013 03:18, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 06/06/2013 09:30 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:32:21PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>>>> On 6 June 2013 22:11, Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:44:27AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 June 2013 20:30, Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> OK, here's a simplified example of what we would like to do (this seems
>>>>>>> pretty common so I suppose there is a way I haven't understood). Our
>>>>>>> situation is slightly more complex but for the purpose of discussion
>>>>>>> let's assume a chip with 8 pins which can be configured for the
>>>>>>> following functions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pin GPIO-A I2C SPI0 SPI1
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 1 GPIOA0 SDA MISO1
>>>>>>> 2 GPIOA1 SCL MOSI1
>>>>>>> 3 GPIOA2 SS1_B
>>>>>>> 4 GPIOA3 SCLK1
>>>>>>> 5 GPIOA4 MISO0
>>>>>>> 6 GPIOA5 MOSI0
>>>>>>> 7 GPIOA6 SS0_B
>>>>>>> 8 GPIOA7 SCLK0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can now define the following pinctrl-single:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pinmux: pinmux@...FEE0000 {
>>>>>>> compatible = "pinctrl-single";
>>>>>>> reg = <0xFFEE0000 0x8>;
>>>>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>> #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>>>> #gpio-range-cells = <3>;
>>>>>>> pinctrl-single,register-width = <32>;
>>>>>>> pinctrl-single,function-mask = <0xffffffff>;
>>>>>>> pinctrl-single,gpio-range = <&range 1 8 0>;
>>>>>>> gpioa_pins: pinmux_gpioa_pins {
>>>>>>> pinctrl-single,pins = <0x0 0 0x4 0>
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> i2c_pins: pinmux_i2c_pins {
>>>>>>> pinctrl-single,pins = <0x0 1>
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> spi0_pins: pinmux_spi0_pins {
>>>>>>> pinctrl-single,pins = <0x1 1>
>>>>>> <0x1 1>?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If each pinmux register is only for one pin in your SoC.
>>>>>> I think that your definitions are wrong above. We use
>>>>>> register offset as the first argument, not pin number.
>>>>>> And the second argument should be pin function number.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our case each pinmux register (bit field) actually controls an entire
>>>>> group of pins.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If multiple pins are sharing one register with different bits,
>>>>>> you need to enable "pinctrl-single,bit-per-mux".
>>>>>
>>>>> Multiple pins are sharing the same bits in the same register. Do you
>>>>> think this prevents us from using pinctrl-single?
>>>>>
>>>> Could you give me your register definition? Then I can understand you
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> In our example, the register map would look a bit like the following.
>>> Note that every register configures four pins at a time.
>>>
>>> Register 0x0:
>>> Mode GPIO-A I2C SPI1
>>> Value 0x0 0x1 0x2
>>> ---------------------------
>>> Pin1 GPIOA0 SDA MISO1
>>> Pin2 GPIOA1 SCL MOSI1
>>> Pin3 GPIOA2 SS1_B
>>> Pin4 GPIOA3 SCLK1
>>>
>>> Register 0x4:
>>> Mode GPIO-A SPI0
>>> Value 0x0 0x1
>>> ---------------------
>>> Pin5 GPIOA4 MISO0
>>> Pin6 GPIOA5 MOSI0
>>> Pin7 GPIOA6 SS0_B
>>> Pin8 GPIOA7 SCLK0
>>
>> My suggestion here is that pinctrl-single isn't appropriate. The only
>> way it could work is if you pretend that each group-of-pins is actually
>> a single pin.
>>
>> However, then the correlation between these pretend pins (i.e. really
>> the groups) and GPIOs won't work, because each "pin" is really 4 pins,
>> and hence 4 GPIOs, and hence you won't be able to gpio_get() more than 1
>> GPIO per pin group, I think.
>
> Actually we can get each GPIO in the SoC. But we need to do some workaround.
>
> 1. As we discussed, we need to pretend a pin group as a single pin.
>
> 2. In DTS, we need to define "gpio-ranges" in gpio node and
> "pinctrl-single,gpio-range"
> in pinmux node as below.
>
> gpio {
> /* gpio offset, pin offset, nr pins */
> /* skip GPIOA1 & GPIOA3, PIN0 means pin1/pin2, PIN1 means
> pin3/pin4 */
> gpio-ranges = <&pmx 0 0 1 &pmx 2 1 1>;
> };
>
> pmx {
> /* pin offset, nr pins, gpio function */
> pinctrl-single,gpio-range = <&range 0 1 0 &range 1 1 0>
> };
> range {
> #pinctrl-single,gpio-range-cells = <3>;
> };
>
> Because we pretend pin1/pin2 as one single pin (PIN1), we skip to define it
> in gpio-ranges. This range is only help you to find right pinmux controller.
>
> Yes, I agree that pinctrl-single driver isn't 100% appropriate. But it
> could work.
> I verified it.
Yeah, that sounds pretty horrible, sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists