linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Ingenic: Add missing UART2 group C for X1000/E

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5c1f03d1-f72a-bc6b-92b4-927898aa3b2d@sudomaker.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:39:03 +0800
From:   Yunian Yang <reimu@...omaker.com>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Ingenic: Add missing UART2 group C for X1000/E

Hi Paul,

Thank you for pointing this out. I sent the refined patch.

On 3/24/22 20:10, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Hi Yunian,
> 
> Le jeu., mars 24 2022 at 20:04:41 +0800, Yunian Yang <reimu@...omaker.com> a écrit :
>> X1000/E has a third UART2 pin group selection, which uses the TDI(G2) as RX
>> and TDO(G1) as TX. This configuration is becoming increasingly popular in
>> newer core boards, such as the Halley2 v4.1. This is done by enabling
>> function 1 of a "virtual pin" PC31. See section 19.3.3 of the X1000
>> Programming Manual for details.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunian Yang <reimu@...omaker.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c | 4 +++-
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c
>> index 2712f51eb238..29709059d62b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c
>> @@ -1982,6 +1982,7 @@ static int x1000_uart1_data_a_pins[] = { 0x04, 0x05, };
>>  static int x1000_uart1_data_d_pins[] = { 0x62, 0x63, };
>>  static int x1000_uart1_hwflow_pins[] = { 0x64, 0x65, };
>>  static int x1000_uart2_data_a_pins[] = { 0x02, 0x03, };
>> +static int x1000_uart2_data_c_pins[] = { 0x5f, 0x5f, };
> 
> One should be enough.
> 
> Looks fine otherwise.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Paul
> 
>>  static int x1000_uart2_data_d_pins[] = { 0x65, 0x64, };
>>  static int x1000_sfc_data_pins[] = { 0x1d, 0x1c, 0x1e, 0x1f, };
>>  static int x1000_sfc_clk_pins[] = { 0x1a, };
>> @@ -2058,6 +2059,7 @@ static const struct group_desc x1000_groups[] = {
>>         INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("uart1-data-d", x1000_uart1_data_d, 1),
>>         INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("uart1-hwflow", x1000_uart1_hwflow, 1),
>>         INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("uart2-data-a", x1000_uart2_data_a, 2),
>> +       INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("uart2-data-c", x1000_uart2_data_c, 1),
>>         INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("uart2-data-d", x1000_uart2_data_d, 0),
>>         INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("sfc-data", x1000_sfc_data, 1),
>>         INGENIC_PIN_GROUP("sfc-clk", x1000_sfc_clk, 1),
>> @@ -2115,7 +2117,7 @@ static const char *x1000_uart0_groups[] = { "uart0-data", "uart0-hwflow", };
>>  static const char *x1000_uart1_groups[] = {
>>         "uart1-data-a", "uart1-data-d", "uart1-hwflow",
>>  };
>> -static const char *x1000_uart2_groups[] = { "uart2-data-a", "uart2-data-d", };
>> +static const char *x1000_uart2_groups[] = { "uart2-data-a", "uart2-data-c", "uart2-data-d", };
>>  static const char *x1000_sfc_groups[] = { "sfc-data", "sfc-clk", "sfc-ce", };
>>  static const char *x1000_ssi_groups[] = {
>>         "ssi-dt-a-22", "ssi-dt-a-29", "ssi-dt-d",
>> -- 
>> 2.30.2
> 
>