Hi, jerome

On 2021/12/16 下午5:20, Jerome Brunet wrote:

On Thu 16 Dec 2021 at 14:07, qianggui.song [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static const unsigned int clk12_24_pins[]		= { GPIOD_10 };
+static const unsigned int pwm_g_hiz_pins[]		= { GPIOD_11 };
+

[...]

quoted

+
+static const char * const tdm_groups[] = {
+	"tdm_d2_c", "tdm_d3_c", "tdm_fs1_c", "tdm_d4_c", "tdm_d5_c",
+	"tdm_fs1_d", "tdm_d4_d", "tdm_d3_d", "tdm_d2_d", "tdm_sclk1_d",
+	"tdm_sclk1_h", "tdm_fs1_h", "tdm_d2_h", "tdm_d3_h", "tdm_d4_h",
+	"tdm_d1", "tdm_d0", "tdm_fs0", "tdm_sclk0", "tdm_fs2", "tdm_sclk2",
+	"tdm_d4_z", "tdm_d5_z", "tdm_d6", "tdm_d7"
+};

On previous chip, there were pin assigned to tdm A, B or C.
On this generation, it seems you have added a second level on pinmuxing
to re-route the audio pins to different controllers
In such case, I don't think they belong in the same group.
Depending on settins, D2 and D3 could be unrelated
I think each audio pin should have its own group (one group for D3, one
D4, etc ...)

According to our audio colleague, on this chip, tdm A/B/C can choose which
pins are routed to their controllers freely by writing special registers,
say, tdm_d2_c can be assigned to any of tdm a, b and c by demand, so no
need to specify a/b/c words any more.

That's basically my comment above. Comment still stands
Each D and FS pin could be related to different interface and should be
in different groups

So I guess below should match above comment, correct me if I’m wrong

static const char * const tdm_d0_groups {
       ...
};
  ...

static const char * const tdm_d7_groups {
       ...
};

static const char * const tdm_fs0_groups {
      ...
};

static const char * const tdm_fs2_groups {
      ...
};

static const char * const tdm_sclk0_groups {
      ...
};
     ...
static const char * const tdm_sclk2_groups {
      ...
};




_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel