On 2018-05-11 8:24 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

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

quoted

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.

Okay. So I'll rename it to gpio_mute, and reference the output pin as 
<&gpio_mute 1>:

+               // Use <&gpio_mute 1> to ref to GPIO_MUTE pin
+		gpio_mute: gpio-mute {
+			compatible = "rockchip,gpio-syscon";
+			gpio-controller;
+			#gpio-cells = <2>;
+			gpio,syscon-dev = <0 0x0428 0>;
+		};
  	};


Thanks
Levin