| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:10:27 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Levin Du <djw@...hip.com.cn>
Cc: "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Wayne Chou <zxf@...hip.com.cn>,
"heiko@...ech.de" <heiko@...ech.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gpio: syscon: rockchip: add GPIO_MUTE support for rk3328
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM
<djw@...hiso.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote:
>
> Levin <djw@...hip.com.cn> writes:
>
> > Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 04:40:09PM +0800, Levin Du wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Levin <djw@...hip.com.cn> wrote:
> >>> > > Hi Rob,
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On 2018-05-31 10:45 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:27 PM, <djw@...hip.com.cn> wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > From: Levin Du <djw@...hip.com.cn>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > In Rockchip RK3328, the output only GPIO_MUTE pin,
> >>> > > > > originally for codec
> >>> > > > > mute control, can also be used for general purpose. It is
> >>> > > > > manipulated by
> >>> > > > > the GRF_SOC_CON10 register.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Levin Du <djw@...hip.com.cn>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > ---
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Changes in v3:
> >>> > > > > - Change from general gpio-syscon to specific
> >>> > > > > rk3328-gpio-mute
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Changes in v2:
> >>> > > > > - Rename gpio_syscon10 to gpio_mute in doc
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Changes in v1:
> >>> > > > > - Refactured for general gpio-syscon usage for Rockchip SoCs.
> >>> > > > > - Add doc rockchip,gpio-syscon.txt
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > .../bindings/gpio/rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute.txt | 28
> >>> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++
> >>> > > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c | 31
> >>> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> > > > > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
> >>> > > > > create mode 100644
> >>> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute.txt
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > diff --git
> >>> > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute.txt
> >>> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute.txt
> >>> > > > > new file mode 100644
> >>> > > > > index 0000000..10bc632
> >>> > > > > --- /dev/null
> >>> > > > > +++
> >>> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute.txt
> >>> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> >>> > > > > +Rockchip RK3328 GPIO controller dedicated for the GPIO_MUTE
> >>> > > > > pin.
> >>> > > > > +
> >>> > > > > +In Rockchip RK3328, the output only GPIO_MUTE pin,
> >>> > > > > originally for codec
> >>> > > > > mute
> >>> > > > > +control, can also be used for general purpose. It is
> >>> > > > > manipulated by the
> >>> > > > > +GRF_SOC_CON10 register.
> >>> > > > > +
> >>> > > > > +Required properties:
> >>> > > > > +- compatible: Should contain "rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute".
> >>> > > > > +- gpio-controller: Marks the device node as a gpio
> >>> > > > > controller.
> >>> > > > > +- #gpio-cells: Should be 2. The first cell is the pin
> >>> > > > > number and
> >>> > > > > + the second cell is used to specify the gpio polarity:
> >>> > > > > + 0 = Active high,
> >>> > > > > + 1 = Active low.
> >>> > > > > +
> >>> > > > > +Example:
> >>> > > > > +
> >>> > > > > + grf: syscon@...00000 {
> >>> > > > > + compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-grf", "syscon",
> >>> > > > > "simple-mfd";
> >>> > > > > +
> >>> > > > > + gpio_mute: gpio-mute {
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Node names should be generic:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > gpio {
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > This also means you can't add another GPIO node in the future
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > you'll have to live with "rockchip,rk3328-gpio-mute" covering
> >>> > > > more
> >>> > > > than 1 GPIO if you do need to add more GPIOs.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > As the first line describes, this GPIO controller is dedicated for
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > GPIO_MUTE pin.
> >>> > > There's only one GPIO pin in the GRF_SOC_CON10 register. Therefore
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > gpio_mute
> >>> > > name is proper IMHO.
> >>> >
> >>> > It's how many GPIOs in the GRF, not this register. What I'm saying is
> >>> > when you come along later to add another GPIO in the GRF, you had
> >>> > better just add it to this same node. I'm not going to accept another
> >>> > GPIO controller node within the GRF. You have the cells to support
> >>> > more than 1, so it would only be a driver change. The compatible
> >>> > string would then not be ideally named at that point. But compatible
> >>> > strings are just unique identifiers, so it doesn't really matter what
> >>> > the string is.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I'll try my best to introduce the situation here. The GRF, GPIO0~GPIO3
> >>> are register blocks in the RK3328 Soc. The GPIO0~GPIO3 contain registers
> >>> for GPIO operations like reading/writing data, setting direction,
> >>> interruption etc, which corresponds to the GPIO banks (gpio0~gpio3)
> >>> defined in rk3328.dtsi:
> >>
> >> I'm only talking about GRF functions, not "regular" GPIOs.
> >>
> >>> pinctrl: pinctrl {
> >>> compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-pinctrl";
> >>> rockchip,grf = <&grf>;
> >>> #address-cells = <2>;
> >>> #size-cells = <2>;
> >>> ranges;
> >>>
> >>> gpio0: gpio0@...10000 {
> >>> compatible = "rockchip,gpio-bank";
> >>> reg = <0x0 0xff210000 0x0 0x100>;
> >>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 51 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >>> clocks = <&cru PCLK_GPIO0>;
> >>>
> >>> gpio-controller;
> >>> #gpio-cells = <2>;
> >>>
> >>> interrupt-controller;
> >>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> gpio1: gpio1@...20000 {
> >>> //...
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> gpio2: gpio2@...30000 {
> >>> //...
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> gpio3: gpio3@...40000 {
> >>> //...
> >>> };
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> However, these general GPIO pins has multiplexed functions and their
> >>> pull up/down and driving strength can also be configured. These settings
> >>> are manipulated by the GRF registers in pinctrl driver. Quoted from the
> >>> TRM, the GRF has the following function:
> >>>
> >>> - IOMUX control
> >>> - Control the state of GPIO in power-down mode
> >>> - GPIO PAD pull down and pull up control
> >>> - Used for common system control
> >>> - Used to record the system state
> >>>
> >>> Therefore the functions of the GRF are messy and scattered in different
> >>> nodes. The so-called GPIO_MUTE does not belong to GPIO0~GPIO3. It is
> >>> manipulated by the GRF_SOC_CON10 register in the GRF block.
> >>>
> >>> > I'm being told both "this is the only GPIO" and "the GRF has too many
> >>> > different functions for us to tell you what they all are". So which is
> >>> > it?
> >>> >
> >>> > Rob
> >>>
> >>> They are both true, but lack of context. See the above description.
> >>
> >> What I meant was "only GPIO in GRF registers"...
> >>
> >> Rob
> >
> > I check the TRM and schematic once again. In GRF resters, there are also
> > HDMI GPIOs, which are already covered by the HDMI driver. Aside from
> > those, MUTE_GPIO is the only GPIO.
So if some board uses the HDMI GPIOs for some other function, then you
would need to model them as GPIOs. Presumably there's just a syscon
phandle and the HDMI driver touches those registers directly which is
not ideal.
> > Levin
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Is there anything I can do to move forward? I know that this patch is
> far from a perfect solution. But it can be refactored later on.
But you can't refactor bindings later on. Extend yes, refactor no.
That's what I'm trying to make sure you avoid.
So if you don't want to be stuck with the "mute" name later on, call
this "...-grf-gpio" to make it future proof.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists