Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/3] pinctrl: pinctrl-mchp-sgpio: Add pinctrl driver for Microsemi Serial GPIO

From: Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/3] pinctrl: pinctrl-mchp-sgpio: Add pinctrl driver for Microsemi Serial GPIO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:14:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a6wvy7lk.fsf@soft-dev15.microsemi.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYqKqqM8D0vrBWbo0=7OFthU2kcK2tjd45dD7DxEkaYWg@mail.gmail.com>


Linus Walleij writes:

> Hi Lars,
>
> I'm overall mostly happy with the latest posting (not the one I respond to here)

I'm glad we're getting there :-)

>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:57 PM Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com> wrote:
>
>> >> +       gc->of_xlate            = microchip_sgpio_of_xlate;
>> >> +       gc->of_gpio_n_cells     = 3;
>> >
>> > So I'm sceptical to this.
>> >
>> > Why can't you just use the pin index in cell 0 directly
>> > and avoid cell 1?
>> >
>>
>> You scepticism has surfaced before :-). The (now) 2 indices relates to
>> how the hardware address signals.
>>
>> Each signal/pin is addressed by port, bit number and direction. We now
>> have the direction encoded in the bank/phandle.
>
> I'm sorry but I just don't get it, I suppose. To me it is pretty
> straight-forward
> that the cells indicate the pin and then the flags. I do understand you
> need the port at all, since this is implicit from the reg property
> of the DT node. Are these two different things?

I responded to this in your comments to the DT bindings.

I just for got to offer to add a description for "#gpio-cells", I see
that's missing. That should make it "crystal clear" - I hope!

Something like:

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/microchip,sparx5-sgpio.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/microchip,sparx5-sgpio.yaml
@@ -86,10 +86,17 @@ patternProperties:
       gpio-controller: true

       '#gpio-cells':
+        description: |
+         Specifies the pin (port and bit) and flags. Note that the
+         SGIO pin is defined by *2* numbers, a port number between 0
+         and 31, and a bit index, 0 to 3. The maximum bit number is
+         controlled indirectly by the "ngpios" property: (ngpios/32).
         const: 3

       ngpios:
-        minimum: 1
+        description: The numbers of GPIO's exposed. This must be a
+          multiple of 32.
+        minimum: 32
         maximum: 128

     required:

Would that be adequate, or should this also be added as a comment in
microchip_sgpio_of_xlate()?

Like:

    +       /* Note that the SGIO pin is defined by *2* numbers, a port
    +        * number between 0 and 31, and a bit index, 0 to 3.
    +        */
            if (gpiospec->args[0] > SGPIO_BITS_PER_WORD ||
                        gpiospec->args[1] > priv->bitcount)
                                        return -EINVAL;

I hope we can put this one to bed...

---Lars

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

-- 
Lars Povlsen,
Microchip

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