Andy,

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 07:08:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM, jmondi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 09:52:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Linus, for me it looks like better to revert that change, until we
will have clear picture why existing configuration parameters can't
work.

Yeah I'll revert the binding for fixes.

quoted

As it seems we won't be able to proceed with the currently proposed solution,
would that be acceptable now that we use the "pinmux" property to add
flags as BIDIR

Can you explain what does this *electrically* mean?

I really don't know what to add to what Chris said in his 2 previous
replies to the same question, and I don't know if I can even get this
information as the most detailed drawing I can provide is what you
have seen already at page 2696 Fig. 54.1 of the following document.

https://www.renesas.com/en-us/doc/products/mpumcu/doc/rz/r01uh0403ej0300_rz_a1h.pdf?key=ccbb2d79446f1cbd015031061140507c

From my perspective these flags are configurations internal to the pin

controller hardware used to enable/disable input buffers when a pin needs to
perform in both direction.
The level of detail I can provide on this is the logical diagram we have pointed
you to already.

As I assume you are trying to get this answer from us in order to
avoid duplicating things in pin controller sub-system, and I
understand this, but my question here was "can we have those flags as part
of the pinmux property argument list, as that property description
seems to allow us to do that, instead of making them generic pin
configuration properties and upset other developers?"

Anyway, I still fail to see why those configuration flags, only
affecting the way the pin controller hardware enables/disables
its internal buffers and its internal operations have to be
described in term of their externally visible electrically characteristics.

Second question, what makes it differ to what already exists?

To me, what already exists are pin configuration properties generic to
the whole pin controller subsystem, and I understand you don't want to
see duplication there.

At the same time, to me, those flags are settings the pin controller
wants to have specified by software to overcome its hw design flaws,
and are intended to configure its internal buffers in a way it cannot
do by itself for some very specific operation modes (they are listed
in the hw reference manual, it's not something you can chose to
configure or not, if you want a pin working in i2c mode, you HAVE to
pass those flags to pin controller).

Thanks
   j

Edit: I see Chris have now replied as well so I leave the SWIO part
out, as his answer is already better than what I can give you.

quoted

 and SWIO_[INPUT|OUTPUT] directly there?

Ditto.

quoted

This was my original proposal, rejected because we were using the "pins"
property at the time.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html