On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Levin Du [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2018-05-10 8:50 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

On 10/05/18 10:16, djw at t-chip.com.cn wrote:

quoted

From: Levin Du <redacted>

Adding a new gpio controller named "gpio-syscon10" to rk3328, providing
access to the pins defined in the syscon GRF_SOC_CON10.

This is the GPIO_MUTE pin, right? The public TRM is rather vague, but
cross-referencing against the datasheet and schematics implies that it's the
"gpiomut_*" part of the GRF bit names which is most significant.

It might be worth using a more descriptive name here, since "syscon10" is
pretty much meaningless at the board level.

Robin.

Previously I though other bits might be able to reference from syscon10,
other than GPIO_MUTE alone.
If it is renamed to gpio-mute, then the GPIO_MUTE pin is accessed as
`<&gpio-mute 1>`. Yet other
bits in syscon10 can also be referenced, say, `<&gpio-mute 10>`, which is
not good.

I'd like to add a `gpio,syscon-bit` property to gpio-syscon, which overrides
the properties
of bit_count,  data_bit_offset and dir_bit_offset in the driver. For

No. Once you are describing individual register bits, it is too low
level for DT.

example:

                gpio_mute: gpio-mute {
                        compatible = "rockchip,gpio-syscon";
                        gpio-controller;
                        #gpio-cells = <2>;
                        gpio,syscon-dev = <0 0x0428 0>;
                        gpio,syscon-bit = <1 1 0>;
                };

That way, the mute pin is strictly specified as <&gpio_mute 0>, and
<&gpio_mute 1> will be invalid.
I think that is neat, and consistent with the gpio_mute name.

Thanks
Levin



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html