| Message ID | 20230207115617.12088-1-pshete@nvidia.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc | expand |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM > To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter > <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; > krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- > tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi > <smangipudi@nvidia.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >>> + type: object > >>> + additionalProperties: > >>> + properties: > >>> + nvidia,pins: > >>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name > >>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed > >>> + below. > >> > >> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of > >> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. > >> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( > > > > The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in > > nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for > > each instance since each has its own set of pins. > > > > This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I > > attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, > > but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC > > bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, > > What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from > shared binding, so you will have only compatible, > patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss > something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read > bindings, referencing common pieces. > > > though splitting > > off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit > > with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would > > effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of > > settled on this compromise for Tegra194. > > OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with > patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with > nvidia,pins. This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. Sent a version v2 addressing all other comments. Thanks Prathamesh > > > > > We're taking a bit of a shortcut here already, since technically not > > all pins support all the functions listed above. On the other hand, > > fully accurately describing per-pin functions would make this a total > > mess, so again, we use this simplified representation as a compromise. > > That's okay, many platforms do the same way. > > (...) > > >>> + > >>> + pex_rst_c5_out_state: pinmux-pex-rst-c5-out { > >>> + pex_rst { > >> > >> Underscores are not valid in node names. > > > > We have supported underscore in older bindings for historical reasons. > > But I suppose for these newer bindings we could disallow them. > > > > Some of the older DTs have a large number of underscores, so I'm not > > sure it makes sense to go back and fix those. Maybe something to keep > > in mind for when we're done with all the conversions... > > I understand, up to you. I think that if such older platform is still > supported/maintained/used, then such cleanups are positive. Underscores > are reported by dtc at W=2, so it is not that critical. But many other nits like > generic node names are being enforced by dtschema, thus if you want to > achieve 0-warning state, at some point you will need to address these. Of > course different question is on what tasks you want to spend your time. :) > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM >> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> >> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter >> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; >> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- >> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi >> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc >> >> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >> >> >> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >> >>>>> + type: object >>>>> + additionalProperties: >>>>> + properties: >>>>> + nvidia,pins: >>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name >>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed >>>>> + below. >>>> >>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of >>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. >>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( >>> >>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in >>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for >>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. >>> >>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I >>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, >>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC >>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, >> >> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from >> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, >> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss >> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read >> bindings, referencing common pieces. >> >>> though splitting >>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit >>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would >>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of >>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. >> >> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with >> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with >> nvidia,pins. > This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. > offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM > >> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > >> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter > >> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; > >> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- > >> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi > >> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc > >> > >> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > >> > >> > >> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>> + type: object > >>>>> + additionalProperties: > >>>>> + properties: > >>>>> + nvidia,pins: > >>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name > >>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed > >>>>> + below. > >>>> > >>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of > >>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. > >>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( > >>> > >>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in > >>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for > >>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. > >>> > >>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I > >>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, > >>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC > >>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, > >> > >> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from > >> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, > >> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss > >> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read > >> bindings, referencing common pieces. > >> > >>> though splitting > >>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit > >>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would > >>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of > >>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. > >> > >> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with > >> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with > >> nvidia,pins. > > This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, > > So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing > code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. I'd say this is very subjective. I personally don't find the current version hard to read, but that's maybe because I wrote it... =) > > offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. > > Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. I don't recall the exact problems that I ran into last time, but I do remember that pulling out the common bindings to the very top-level was the main issue. If I understand correctly what you're saying, the main problem that makes this hard to read is the if and else constructs for AON/MAIN variants on Tegra194/Tegra234. These should be quite easy to pull out into separate bindings. I'll do that first and then see if there's anything that could be done to further improve things. Thierry
On 23/03/2023 15:11, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM >>>> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter >>>> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; >>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- >>>> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi >>>> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc >>>> >>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >>>> >>>> >>>> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> + type: object >>>>>>> + additionalProperties: >>>>>>> + properties: >>>>>>> + nvidia,pins: >>>>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name >>>>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed >>>>>>> + below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of >>>>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. >>>>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( >>>>> >>>>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in >>>>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for >>>>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. >>>>> >>>>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I >>>>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, >>>>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC >>>>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, >>>> >>>> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from >>>> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, >>>> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss >>>> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read >>>> bindings, referencing common pieces. >>>> >>>>> though splitting >>>>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit >>>>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would >>>>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of >>>>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. >>>> >>>> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with >>>> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with >>>> nvidia,pins. >>> This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, >> >> So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing >> code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. > > I'd say this is very subjective. I personally don't find the current > version hard to read, but that's maybe because I wrote it... =) > >>> offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. >> >> Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. > > I don't recall the exact problems that I ran into last time, but I do > remember that pulling out the common bindings to the very top-level was > the main issue. > > If I understand correctly what you're saying, the main problem that > makes this hard to read is the if and else constructs for AON/MAIN > variants on Tegra194/Tegra234. These should be quite easy to pull out > into separate bindings. I'll do that first and then see if there's > anything that could be done to further improve things. One problem is allowing characters here which are not allowed. Second problem is reluctance to change it with argument "existing bindings also have this problem". It's explanation like "there is already bug like this, so I am allowed to add similar one". Now third is that defining properties in allOf is not the style we want to have, because it does not work with additionalProperties and is difficult to read. Again using argument "existing code also does like this" is a very poor argument. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/03/2023 15:11, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM > >>>> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > >>>> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter > >>>> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; > >>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- > >>>> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi > >>>> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc > >>>> > >>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> + type: object > >>>>>>> + additionalProperties: > >>>>>>> + properties: > >>>>>>> + nvidia,pins: > >>>>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name > >>>>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed > >>>>>>> + below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of > >>>>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. > >>>>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( > >>>>> > >>>>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in > >>>>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for > >>>>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. > >>>>> > >>>>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I > >>>>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, > >>>>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC > >>>>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, > >>>> > >>>> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from > >>>> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, > >>>> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss > >>>> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read > >>>> bindings, referencing common pieces. > >>>> > >>>>> though splitting > >>>>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit > >>>>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would > >>>>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of > >>>>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. > >>>> > >>>> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with > >>>> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with > >>>> nvidia,pins. > >>> This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, > >> > >> So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing > >> code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. > > > > I'd say this is very subjective. I personally don't find the current > > version hard to read, but that's maybe because I wrote it... =) > > > >>> offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. > >> > >> Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. > > > > I don't recall the exact problems that I ran into last time, but I do > > remember that pulling out the common bindings to the very top-level was > > the main issue. > > > > If I understand correctly what you're saying, the main problem that > > makes this hard to read is the if and else constructs for AON/MAIN > > variants on Tegra194/Tegra234. These should be quite easy to pull out > > into separate bindings. I'll do that first and then see if there's > > anything that could be done to further improve things. > > One problem is allowing characters here which are not allowed. Second > problem is reluctance to change it with argument "existing bindings also > have this problem". It's explanation like "there is already bug like > this, so I am allowed to add similar one". This is not a bug that we're trying to replicate. We're basing this binding on a existing bindings that were already reviewed upstream a long time ago. It uses a shared binding that's in use by these other bindings, so making any changes to this new binding means either the other ones need to be changed as well or we can't reuse the existing shared binding. > Now third is that defining properties in allOf is not the style we want > to have, because it does not work with additionalProperties and is > difficult to read. Again using argument "existing code also does like > this" is a very poor argument. As far as I can tell, it does work as expected in this case because we're not actually adding any *new* properties in the allOf/if branches. If we were, then yes, we would need to use unevaluatedProperties and that can get complicated. But again, in this case we're merely overriding existing properties with more specific values, which means that both the standard binding applies and then things are narrowed down by the values defined for each compatible. Thierry
On 28/03/2023 14:39, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/03/2023 15:11, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM >>>>>> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> >>>>>> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter >>>>>> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; >>>>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- >>>>>> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi >>>>>> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc >>>>>> >>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + type: object >>>>>>>>> + additionalProperties: >>>>>>>>> + properties: >>>>>>>>> + nvidia,pins: >>>>>>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name >>>>>>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed >>>>>>>>> + below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of >>>>>>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. >>>>>>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in >>>>>>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for >>>>>>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I >>>>>>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, >>>>>>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC >>>>>>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, >>>>>> >>>>>> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from >>>>>> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, >>>>>> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss >>>>>> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read >>>>>> bindings, referencing common pieces. >>>>>> >>>>>>> though splitting >>>>>>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit >>>>>>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would >>>>>>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of >>>>>>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with >>>>>> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with >>>>>> nvidia,pins. >>>>> This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, >>>> >>>> So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing >>>> code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. >>> >>> I'd say this is very subjective. I personally don't find the current >>> version hard to read, but that's maybe because I wrote it... =) >>> >>>>> offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. >>>> >>>> Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. >>> >>> I don't recall the exact problems that I ran into last time, but I do >>> remember that pulling out the common bindings to the very top-level was >>> the main issue. >>> >>> If I understand correctly what you're saying, the main problem that >>> makes this hard to read is the if and else constructs for AON/MAIN >>> variants on Tegra194/Tegra234. These should be quite easy to pull out >>> into separate bindings. I'll do that first and then see if there's >>> anything that could be done to further improve things. >> >> One problem is allowing characters here which are not allowed. Second >> problem is reluctance to change it with argument "existing bindings also >> have this problem". It's explanation like "there is already bug like >> this, so I am allowed to add similar one". > > This is not a bug that we're trying to replicate. We're basing this > binding on a existing bindings that were already reviewed upstream a > long time ago. It uses a shared binding that's in use by these other > bindings, so making any changes to this new binding means either the > other ones need to be changed as well or we can't reuse the existing > shared binding. Are you sure? I did not see here conflict. The specific device binding can narrow the pattern defined in common binding. What's more, where do you see this pattern at all in shared binding? I am sorry, but this does not fit my arguments at all. This pattern is clearly wrong and argument to keep duplicating it because other (not common!) binding also has it is by design invalid. > >> Now third is that defining properties in allOf is not the style we want >> to have, because it does not work with additionalProperties and is >> difficult to read. Again using argument "existing code also does like >> this" is a very poor argument. > > As far as I can tell, it does work as expected in this case because > we're not actually adding any *new* properties in the allOf/if branches. The if:else: defines type and additionalProperties, so I am sorry but this is not a readable solution. > If we were, then yes, we would need to use unevaluatedProperties and > that can get complicated. But again, in this case we're merely > overriding existing properties with more specific values, which means > that both the standard binding applies and then things are narrowed down > by the values defined for each compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/03/2023 14:39, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 23/03/2023 15:11, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM > >>>>>> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter > >>>>>> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; > >>>>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- > >>>>>> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi > >>>>>> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc > >>>>>> > >>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + type: object > >>>>>>>>> + additionalProperties: > >>>>>>>>> + properties: > >>>>>>>>> + nvidia,pins: > >>>>>>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name > >>>>>>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed > >>>>>>>>> + below. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of > >>>>>>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. > >>>>>>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in > >>>>>>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for > >>>>>>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I > >>>>>>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, > >>>>>>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC > >>>>>>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from > >>>>>> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, > >>>>>> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss > >>>>>> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read > >>>>>> bindings, referencing common pieces. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> though splitting > >>>>>>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit > >>>>>>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would > >>>>>>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of > >>>>>>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with > >>>>>> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with > >>>>>> nvidia,pins. > >>>>> This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, > >>>> > >>>> So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing > >>>> code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. > >>> > >>> I'd say this is very subjective. I personally don't find the current > >>> version hard to read, but that's maybe because I wrote it... =) > >>> > >>>>> offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. > >>>> > >>>> Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. > >>> > >>> I don't recall the exact problems that I ran into last time, but I do > >>> remember that pulling out the common bindings to the very top-level was > >>> the main issue. > >>> > >>> If I understand correctly what you're saying, the main problem that > >>> makes this hard to read is the if and else constructs for AON/MAIN > >>> variants on Tegra194/Tegra234. These should be quite easy to pull out > >>> into separate bindings. I'll do that first and then see if there's > >>> anything that could be done to further improve things. > >> > >> One problem is allowing characters here which are not allowed. Second > >> problem is reluctance to change it with argument "existing bindings also > >> have this problem". It's explanation like "there is already bug like > >> this, so I am allowed to add similar one". > > > > This is not a bug that we're trying to replicate. We're basing this > > binding on a existing bindings that were already reviewed upstream a > > long time ago. It uses a shared binding that's in use by these other > > bindings, so making any changes to this new binding means either the > > other ones need to be changed as well or we can't reuse the existing > > shared binding. > > Are you sure? I did not see here conflict. The specific device binding > can narrow the pattern defined in common binding. > > What's more, where do you see this pattern at all in shared binding? > > I am sorry, but this does not fit my arguments at all. This pattern is > clearly wrong and argument to keep duplicating it because other (not > common!) binding also has it is by design invalid. > > > > >> Now third is that defining properties in allOf is not the style we want > >> to have, because it does not work with additionalProperties and is > >> difficult to read. Again using argument "existing code also does like > >> this" is a very poor argument. > > > > As far as I can tell, it does work as expected in this case because > > we're not actually adding any *new* properties in the allOf/if branches. > > The if:else: defines type and additionalProperties, so I am sorry but > this is not a readable solution. > > > If we were, then yes, we would need to use unevaluatedProperties and > > that can get complicated. But again, in this case we're merely > > overriding existing properties with more specific values, which means > > that both the standard binding applies and then things are narrowed down > > by the values defined for each compatible. Okay, so I'm starting to get a bit lost here, so maybe it's time for another proposal. I've tried splitting this up more so that we avoid the if/else block. Would you mind taking another look to see if the patch below is any more readable to you? Thierry From 00cb909f6d8732680d65cdb67e0573c8e6dc7b7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 17:14:30 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234 Add DT binding doc for Tegra234 pinmux driver. Signed-off-by: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> --- .../pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml | 61 ++++++++ .../nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml | 65 ++++++++ .../pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml | 141 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 267 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9d7017a39408 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +$ref: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml + +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 AON Pinmux Controller + +maintainers: + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> + +properties: + compatible: + const: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon + + reg: true + +patternProperties: + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-]+)?$": + type: object + + # pin groups + additionalProperties: + properties: + nvidia,pins: + items: + enum: [ can0_dout_paa0, can0_din_paa1, can1_dout_paa2, + can1_din_paa3, can0_stb_paa4, can0_en_paa5, + soc_gpio49_paa6, can0_err_paa7, can1_stb_pbb0, + can1_en_pbb1, soc_gpio50_pbb2, can1_err_pbb3, + spi2_sck_pcc0, spi2_miso_pcc1, spi2_mosi_pcc2, + spi2_cs0_pcc3, touch_clk_pcc4, uart3_tx_pcc5, + uart3_rx_pcc6, gen2_i2c_scl_pcc7, gen2_i2c_sda_pdd0, + gen8_i2c_scl_pdd1, gen8_i2c_sda_pdd2, + sce_error_pee0, vcomp_alert_pee1, + ao_retention_n_pee2, batt_oc_pee3, power_on_pee4, + soc_gpio26_pee5, soc_gpio27_pee6, bootv_ctl_n_pee7, + hdmi_cec_pgg0, + # drive groups + drive_touch_clk_pcc4, drive_uart3_rx_pcc6, + drive_uart3_tx_pcc5, drive_gen8_i2c_sda_pdd2, + drive_gen8_i2c_scl_pdd1, drive_spi2_mosi_pcc2, + drive_gen2_i2c_scl_pcc7, drive_spi2_cs0_pcc3, + drive_gen2_i2c_sda_pdd0, drive_spi2_sck_pcc0, + drive_spi2_miso_pcc1, drive_can1_dout_paa2, + drive_can1_din_paa3, drive_can0_dout_paa0, + drive_can0_din_paa1, drive_can0_stb_paa4, + drive_can0_en_paa5, drive_soc_gpio49_paa6, + drive_can0_err_paa7, drive_can1_stb_pbb0, + drive_can1_en_pbb1, drive_soc_gpio50_pbb2, + drive_can1_err_pbb3, drive_sce_error_pee0, + drive_batt_oc_pee3, drive_bootv_ctl_n_pee7, + drive_power_on_pee4, drive_soc_gpio26_pee5, + drive_soc_gpio27_pee6, drive_ao_retention_n_pee2, + drive_vcomp_alert_pee1, drive_hdmi_cec_pgg0 ] + +additionalProperties: false +... diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..a09d050b7d37 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 Pinmux Controller + +maintainers: + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> + +properties: + compatible: true + + reg: + items: + - description: pinmux registers + +patternProperties: + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-]+)?$": + type: object + properties: + phandle: true + + # pin groups + additionalProperties: + $ref: nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml + unevaluatedProperties: false + properties: + nvidia,function: + enum: [ gp, uartc, i2c8, spi2, i2c2, can1, can0, rsvd0, eth0, eth2, + eth1, dp, eth3, i2c4, i2c7, i2c9, eqos, pe2, pe1, pe0, pe3, + pe4, pe5, pe6, pe7, pe8, pe9, pe10, qspi0, qspi1, qpsi, + sdmmc1, sce, soc, gpio, hdmi, ufs0, spi3, spi1, uartb, uarte, + usb, extperiph2, extperiph1, i2c3, vi0, i2c5, uarta, uartd, + i2c1, i2s4, i2s6, aud, spi5, touch, uartj, rsvd1, wdt, tsc, + dmic3, led, vi0_alt, i2s5, nv, extperiph3, extperiph4, spi4, + ccla, i2s1, i2s2, i2s3, i2s8, rsvd2, dmic5, dca, displayb, + displaya, vi1, dcb, dmic1, dmic4, i2s7, dmic2, dspk0, rsvd3, + tsc_alt, istctrl, vi1_alt, dspk1, igpu ] + + nvidia,pins: + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed + below. + + nvidia,pull: true + nvidia,tristate: true + nvidia,schmitt: true + nvidia,enable-input: true + nvidia,open-drain: true + nvidia,lock: true + nvidia,drive-type: true + nvidia,io-hv: true + + required: + - nvidia,pins + +additionalProperties: false + +required: + - compatible + - reg +... diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..7f0bf3d75f35 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +$ref: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml + +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 Pinmux Controller + +maintainers: + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> + +properties: + compatible: + const: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux + + reg: true + +patternProperties: + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-]+)?$": + type: object + + # pin groups + additionalProperties: + properties: + nvidia,pins: + items: + enum: [ dap6_sclk_pa0, dap6_dout_pa1, dap6_din_pa2, + dap6_fs_pa3, dap4_sclk_pa4, dap4_dout_pa5, + dap4_din_pa6, dap4_fs_pa7, soc_gpio08_pb0, + qspi0_sck_pc0, qspi0_cs_n_pc1, + qspi0_io0_pc2, qspi0_io1_pc3, qspi0_io2_pc4, + qspi0_io3_pc5, qspi1_sck_pc6, qspi1_cs_n_pc7, + qspi1_io0_pd0, qspi1_io1_pd1, qspi1_io2_pd2, + qspi1_io3_pd3, eqos_txc_pe0, eqos_td0_pe1, + eqos_td1_pe2, eqos_td2_pe3, eqos_td3_pe4, + eqos_tx_ctl_pe5, eqos_rd0_pe6, eqos_rd1_pe7, + eqos_rd2_pf0, eqos_rd3_pf1, eqos_rx_ctl_pf2, + eqos_rxc_pf3, eqos_sma_mdio_pf4, eqos_sma_mdc_pf5, + soc_gpio13_pg0, soc_gpio14_pg1, soc_gpio15_pg2, + soc_gpio16_pg3, soc_gpio17_pg4, soc_gpio18_pg5, + soc_gpio19_pg6, soc_gpio20_pg7, soc_gpio21_ph0, + soc_gpio22_ph1, soc_gpio06_ph2, uart4_tx_ph3, + uart4_rx_ph4, uart4_rts_ph5, uart4_cts_ph6, + soc_gpio41_ph7, soc_gpio42_pi0, soc_gpio43_pi1, + soc_gpio44_pi2, gen1_i2c_scl_pi3, gen1_i2c_sda_pi4, + cpu_pwr_req_pi5, soc_gpio07_pi6, + sdmmc1_clk_pj0, sdmmc1_cmd_pj1, sdmmc1_dat0_pj2, + sdmmc1_dat1_pj3, sdmmc1_dat2_pj4, sdmmc1_dat3_pj5, + pex_l0_clkreq_n_pk0, pex_l0_rst_n_pk1, + pex_l1_clkreq_n_pk2, pex_l1_rst_n_pk3, + pex_l2_clkreq_n_pk4, pex_l2_rst_n_pk5, + pex_l3_clkreq_n_pk6, pex_l3_rst_n_pk7, + pex_l4_clkreq_n_pl0, pex_l4_rst_n_pl1, + pex_wake_n_pl2, soc_gpio34_pl3, dp_aux_ch0_hpd_pm0, + dp_aux_ch1_hpd_pm1, dp_aux_ch2_hpd_pm2, + dp_aux_ch3_hpd_pm3, soc_gpio55_pm4, soc_gpio36_pm5, + soc_gpio53_pm6, soc_gpio38_pm7, dp_aux_ch3_n_pn0, + soc_gpio39_pn1, soc_gpio40_pn2, dp_aux_ch1_p_pn3, + dp_aux_ch1_n_pn4, dp_aux_ch2_p_pn5, dp_aux_ch2_n_pn6, + dp_aux_ch3_p_pn7, extperiph1_clk_pp0, + extperiph2_clk_pp1, cam_i2c_scl_pp2, cam_i2c_sda_pp3, + soc_gpio23_pp4, soc_gpio24_pp5, soc_gpio25_pp6, + pwr_i2c_scl_pp7, pwr_i2c_sda_pq0, soc_gpio28_pq1, + soc_gpio29_pq2, soc_gpio30_pq3, soc_gpio31_pq4, + soc_gpio32_pq5, soc_gpio33_pq6, soc_gpio35_pq7, + soc_gpio37_pr0, soc_gpio56_pr1, uart1_tx_pr2, + uart1_rx_pr3, uart1_rts_pr4, uart1_cts_pr5, + soc_gpio61_pw0, soc_gpio62_pw1, gpu_pwr_req_px0, + cv_pwr_req_px1, gp_pwm2_px2, gp_pwm3_px3, uart2_tx_px4, + uart2_rx_px5, uart2_rts_px6, uart2_cts_px7, spi3_sck_py0, + spi3_miso_py1, spi3_mosi_py2, spi3_cs0_py3, + spi3_cs1_py4, uart5_tx_py5, uart5_rx_py6, + uart5_rts_py7, uart5_cts_pz0, usb_vbus_en0_pz1, + usb_vbus_en1_pz2, spi1_sck_pz3, spi1_miso_pz4, + spi1_mosi_pz5, spi1_cs0_pz6, spi1_cs1_pz7, + spi5_sck_pac0, spi5_miso_pac1, spi5_mosi_pac2, + spi5_cs0_pac3, soc_gpio57_pac4, soc_gpio58_pac5, + soc_gpio59_pac6, soc_gpio60_pac7, soc_gpio45_pad0, + soc_gpio46_pad1, soc_gpio47_pad2, soc_gpio48_pad3, + ufs0_ref_clk_pae0, ufs0_rst_n_pae1, + pex_l5_clkreq_n_paf0, pex_l5_rst_n_paf1, + pex_l6_clkreq_n_paf2, pex_l6_rst_n_paf3, + pex_l7_clkreq_n_pag0, pex_l7_rst_n_pag1, + pex_l8_clkreq_n_pag2, pex_l8_rst_n_pag3, + pex_l9_clkreq_n_pag4, pex_l9_rst_n_pag5, + pex_l10_clkreq_n_pag6, pex_l10_rst_n_pag7, + sdmmc1_comp, eqos_comp, qspi_comp, + # drive groups + drive_soc_gpio08_pb0, drive_soc_gpio36_pm5, + drive_soc_gpio53_pm6, drive_soc_gpio55_pm4, + drive_soc_gpio38_pm7, drive_soc_gpio39_pn1, + drive_soc_gpio40_pn2, drive_dp_aux_ch0_hpd_pm0, + drive_dp_aux_ch1_hpd_pm1, drive_dp_aux_ch2_hpd_pm2, + drive_dp_aux_ch3_hpd_pm3, drive_dp_aux_ch1_p_pn3, + drive_dp_aux_ch1_n_pn4, drive_dp_aux_ch2_p_pn5, + drive_dp_aux_ch2_n_pn6, drive_dp_aux_ch3_p_pn7, + drive_dp_aux_ch3_n_pn0, drive_pex_l2_clkreq_n_pk4, + drive_pex_wake_n_pl2, drive_pex_l1_clkreq_n_pk2, + drive_pex_l1_rst_n_pk3, drive_pex_l0_clkreq_n_pk0, + drive_pex_l0_rst_n_pk1, drive_pex_l2_rst_n_pk5, + drive_pex_l3_clkreq_n_pk6, drive_pex_l3_rst_n_pk7, + drive_pex_l4_clkreq_n_pl0, drive_pex_l4_rst_n_pl1, + drive_soc_gpio34_pl3, drive_pex_l5_clkreq_n_paf0, + drive_pex_l5_rst_n_paf1, drive_pex_l6_clkreq_n_paf2, + drive_pex_l6_rst_n_paf3, drive_pex_l10_clkreq_n_pag6, + drive_pex_l10_rst_n_pag7, drive_pex_l7_clkreq_n_pag0, + drive_pex_l7_rst_n_pag1, drive_pex_l8_clkreq_n_pag2, + drive_pex_l8_rst_n_pag3, drive_pex_l9_clkreq_n_pag4, + drive_pex_l9_rst_n_pag5, drive_sdmmc1_clk_pj0, + drive_sdmmc1_cmd_pj1, drive_sdmmc1_dat3_pj5, + drive_sdmmc1_dat2_pj4, drive_sdmmc1_dat1_pj3, + drive_sdmmc1_dat0_pj2 ] + +additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + #include <dt-bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra.h> + + pinmux@2430000 { + compatible = "nvidia,tegra234-pinmux"; + reg = <0x2430000 0x17000>; + + pinctrl-names = "pex_rst"; + pinctrl-0 = <&pex_rst_c5_out_state>; + + pex_rst_c5_out_state: pinmux-pex-rst-c5-out { + pexrst { + nvidia,pins = "pex_l5_rst_n_paf1"; + nvidia,schmitt = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; + nvidia,enable-input = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; + nvidia,io-hv = <TEGRA_PIN_ENABLE>; + nvidia,tristate = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; + nvidia,pull = <TEGRA_PIN_PULL_NONE>; + }; + }; + }; +...
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 28/03/2023 14:39, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >> On 23/03/2023 15:11, Thierry Reding wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>>> On 08/03/2023 12:45, Prathamesh Shete wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:28 PM > > >>>>>> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > > >>>>>> Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com>; Jonathan Hunter > > >>>>>> <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; > > >>>>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > >>>>>> tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Suresh Mangipudi > > >>>>>> <smangipudi@nvidia.com> > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234: Add DT binding doc > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 08/02/2023 12:24, Thierry Reding wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> + type: object > > >>>>>>>>> + additionalProperties: > > >>>>>>>>> + properties: > > >>>>>>>>> + nvidia,pins: > > >>>>>>>>> + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name > > >>>>>>>>> + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed > > >>>>>>>>> + below. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Define properties in top level, which points to the complexity of > > >>>>>>>> your if-else, thus probably this should be split into two bindings. > > >>>>>>>> Dunno, your other bindings repeat this pattern :( > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The property itself is already defined in the common schema found in > > >>>>>>> nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml and we're overriding this here for > > >>>>>>> each instance since each has its own set of pins. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> This was a compromise to avoid too many bindings. Originally I > > >>>>>>> attempted to roll all Tegra pinctrl bindings into a single dt-schema, > > >>>>>>> but that turned out truly horrible =) Splitting this into per-SoC > > >>>>>>> bindings is already causing a lot of duplication in these files, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> What would be duplicated? Almost eveerything should be coming from > > >>>>>> shared binding, so you will have only compatible, > > >>>>>> patternProperties(pinmux) and nvidia,pins. And an example. Maybe I miss > > >>>>>> something but I would say this would create many but very easy to read > > >>>>>> bindings, referencing common pieces. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> though splitting > > >>>>>>> off the common bits into nvidi,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml helps a bit > > >>>>>>> with that already. Splitting this into per-instance bindings would > > >>>>>>> effectively duplicate everything but the pin array here, so we kind of > > >>>>>>> settled on this compromise for Tegra194. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> OK, but are you sure it is now readable? You have if:then: with > > >>>>>> patternProperties: with additionalProperties: with properties: with > > >>>>>> nvidia,pins. > > >>>>> This is inline with the existing bindings and I think this is the compromise that was reached during review when the bindings were submitted, > > >>>> > > >>>> So the code might be totally unreadable, but it is inline with existing > > >>>> code, thus it should stay unreadable. Great. > > >>> > > >>> I'd say this is very subjective. I personally don't find the current > > >>> version hard to read, but that's maybe because I wrote it... =) > > >>> > > >>>>> offer to rework if a better alternative can be found, but that only makes sense if all the other bindings get changed as well, so I think it'd be good if we can merge in the same format as the existing bindings for now and change all of them later on. > > >>>> > > >>>> Cleanup should happen before adding new bindings. > > >>> > > >>> I don't recall the exact problems that I ran into last time, but I do > > >>> remember that pulling out the common bindings to the very top-level was > > >>> the main issue. > > >>> > > >>> If I understand correctly what you're saying, the main problem that > > >>> makes this hard to read is the if and else constructs for AON/MAIN > > >>> variants on Tegra194/Tegra234. These should be quite easy to pull out > > >>> into separate bindings. I'll do that first and then see if there's > > >>> anything that could be done to further improve things. > > >> > > >> One problem is allowing characters here which are not allowed. Second > > >> problem is reluctance to change it with argument "existing bindings also > > >> have this problem". It's explanation like "there is already bug like > > >> this, so I am allowed to add similar one". > > > > > > This is not a bug that we're trying to replicate. We're basing this > > > binding on a existing bindings that were already reviewed upstream a > > > long time ago. It uses a shared binding that's in use by these other > > > bindings, so making any changes to this new binding means either the > > > other ones need to be changed as well or we can't reuse the existing > > > shared binding. > > > > Are you sure? I did not see here conflict. The specific device binding > > can narrow the pattern defined in common binding. > > > > What's more, where do you see this pattern at all in shared binding? > > > > I am sorry, but this does not fit my arguments at all. This pattern is > > clearly wrong and argument to keep duplicating it because other (not > > common!) binding also has it is by design invalid. > > > > > > > >> Now third is that defining properties in allOf is not the style we want > > >> to have, because it does not work with additionalProperties and is > > >> difficult to read. Again using argument "existing code also does like > > >> this" is a very poor argument. > > > > > > As far as I can tell, it does work as expected in this case because > > > we're not actually adding any *new* properties in the allOf/if branches. > > > > The if:else: defines type and additionalProperties, so I am sorry but > > this is not a readable solution. > > > > > If we were, then yes, we would need to use unevaluatedProperties and > > > that can get complicated. But again, in this case we're merely > > > overriding existing properties with more specific values, which means > > > that both the standard binding applies and then things are narrowed down > > > by the values defined for each compatible. > > Okay, so I'm starting to get a bit lost here, so maybe it's time for > another proposal. I've tried splitting this up more so that we avoid > the if/else block. Would you mind taking another look to see if the > patch below is any more readable to you? > > Thierry Krzysztof, any thoughts on this proposal? Thanks, Thierry > From 00cb909f6d8732680d65cdb67e0573c8e6dc7b7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com> > Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 17:14:30 +0530 > Subject: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: tegra234 > > Add DT binding doc for Tegra234 pinmux driver. > > Signed-off-by: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> > --- > .../pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml | 61 ++++++++ > .../nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml | 65 ++++++++ > .../pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml | 141 ++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 267 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..9d7017a39408 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +$ref: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml > + > +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 AON Pinmux Controller > + > +maintainers: > + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + const: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon > + > + reg: true > + > +patternProperties: > + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-]+)?$": > + type: object > + > + # pin groups > + additionalProperties: > + properties: > + nvidia,pins: > + items: > + enum: [ can0_dout_paa0, can0_din_paa1, can1_dout_paa2, > + can1_din_paa3, can0_stb_paa4, can0_en_paa5, > + soc_gpio49_paa6, can0_err_paa7, can1_stb_pbb0, > + can1_en_pbb1, soc_gpio50_pbb2, can1_err_pbb3, > + spi2_sck_pcc0, spi2_miso_pcc1, spi2_mosi_pcc2, > + spi2_cs0_pcc3, touch_clk_pcc4, uart3_tx_pcc5, > + uart3_rx_pcc6, gen2_i2c_scl_pcc7, gen2_i2c_sda_pdd0, > + gen8_i2c_scl_pdd1, gen8_i2c_sda_pdd2, > + sce_error_pee0, vcomp_alert_pee1, > + ao_retention_n_pee2, batt_oc_pee3, power_on_pee4, > + soc_gpio26_pee5, soc_gpio27_pee6, bootv_ctl_n_pee7, > + hdmi_cec_pgg0, > + # drive groups > + drive_touch_clk_pcc4, drive_uart3_rx_pcc6, > + drive_uart3_tx_pcc5, drive_gen8_i2c_sda_pdd2, > + drive_gen8_i2c_scl_pdd1, drive_spi2_mosi_pcc2, > + drive_gen2_i2c_scl_pcc7, drive_spi2_cs0_pcc3, > + drive_gen2_i2c_sda_pdd0, drive_spi2_sck_pcc0, > + drive_spi2_miso_pcc1, drive_can1_dout_paa2, > + drive_can1_din_paa3, drive_can0_dout_paa0, > + drive_can0_din_paa1, drive_can0_stb_paa4, > + drive_can0_en_paa5, drive_soc_gpio49_paa6, > + drive_can0_err_paa7, drive_can1_stb_pbb0, > + drive_can1_en_pbb1, drive_soc_gpio50_pbb2, > + drive_can1_err_pbb3, drive_sce_error_pee0, > + drive_batt_oc_pee3, drive_bootv_ctl_n_pee7, > + drive_power_on_pee4, drive_soc_gpio26_pee5, > + drive_soc_gpio27_pee6, drive_ao_retention_n_pee2, > + drive_vcomp_alert_pee1, drive_hdmi_cec_pgg0 ] > + > +additionalProperties: false > +... > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..a09d050b7d37 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 Pinmux Controller > + > +maintainers: > + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> > + > +properties: > + compatible: true > + > + reg: > + items: > + - description: pinmux registers > + > +patternProperties: > + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-]+)?$": > + type: object > + properties: > + phandle: true > + > + # pin groups > + additionalProperties: > + $ref: nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml > + unevaluatedProperties: false > + properties: > + nvidia,function: > + enum: [ gp, uartc, i2c8, spi2, i2c2, can1, can0, rsvd0, eth0, eth2, > + eth1, dp, eth3, i2c4, i2c7, i2c9, eqos, pe2, pe1, pe0, pe3, > + pe4, pe5, pe6, pe7, pe8, pe9, pe10, qspi0, qspi1, qpsi, > + sdmmc1, sce, soc, gpio, hdmi, ufs0, spi3, spi1, uartb, uarte, > + usb, extperiph2, extperiph1, i2c3, vi0, i2c5, uarta, uartd, > + i2c1, i2s4, i2s6, aud, spi5, touch, uartj, rsvd1, wdt, tsc, > + dmic3, led, vi0_alt, i2s5, nv, extperiph3, extperiph4, spi4, > + ccla, i2s1, i2s2, i2s3, i2s8, rsvd2, dmic5, dca, displayb, > + displaya, vi1, dcb, dmic1, dmic4, i2s7, dmic2, dspk0, rsvd3, > + tsc_alt, istctrl, vi1_alt, dspk1, igpu ] > + > + nvidia,pins: > + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name > + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed > + below. > + > + nvidia,pull: true > + nvidia,tristate: true > + nvidia,schmitt: true > + nvidia,enable-input: true > + nvidia,open-drain: true > + nvidia,lock: true > + nvidia,drive-type: true > + nvidia,io-hv: true > + > + required: > + - nvidia,pins > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > +... > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..7f0bf3d75f35 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +$ref: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-common.yaml > + > +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 Pinmux Controller > + > +maintainers: > + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + const: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux > + > + reg: true > + > +patternProperties: > + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-]+)?$": > + type: object > + > + # pin groups > + additionalProperties: > + properties: > + nvidia,pins: > + items: > + enum: [ dap6_sclk_pa0, dap6_dout_pa1, dap6_din_pa2, > + dap6_fs_pa3, dap4_sclk_pa4, dap4_dout_pa5, > + dap4_din_pa6, dap4_fs_pa7, soc_gpio08_pb0, > + qspi0_sck_pc0, qspi0_cs_n_pc1, > + qspi0_io0_pc2, qspi0_io1_pc3, qspi0_io2_pc4, > + qspi0_io3_pc5, qspi1_sck_pc6, qspi1_cs_n_pc7, > + qspi1_io0_pd0, qspi1_io1_pd1, qspi1_io2_pd2, > + qspi1_io3_pd3, eqos_txc_pe0, eqos_td0_pe1, > + eqos_td1_pe2, eqos_td2_pe3, eqos_td3_pe4, > + eqos_tx_ctl_pe5, eqos_rd0_pe6, eqos_rd1_pe7, > + eqos_rd2_pf0, eqos_rd3_pf1, eqos_rx_ctl_pf2, > + eqos_rxc_pf3, eqos_sma_mdio_pf4, eqos_sma_mdc_pf5, > + soc_gpio13_pg0, soc_gpio14_pg1, soc_gpio15_pg2, > + soc_gpio16_pg3, soc_gpio17_pg4, soc_gpio18_pg5, > + soc_gpio19_pg6, soc_gpio20_pg7, soc_gpio21_ph0, > + soc_gpio22_ph1, soc_gpio06_ph2, uart4_tx_ph3, > + uart4_rx_ph4, uart4_rts_ph5, uart4_cts_ph6, > + soc_gpio41_ph7, soc_gpio42_pi0, soc_gpio43_pi1, > + soc_gpio44_pi2, gen1_i2c_scl_pi3, gen1_i2c_sda_pi4, > + cpu_pwr_req_pi5, soc_gpio07_pi6, > + sdmmc1_clk_pj0, sdmmc1_cmd_pj1, sdmmc1_dat0_pj2, > + sdmmc1_dat1_pj3, sdmmc1_dat2_pj4, sdmmc1_dat3_pj5, > + pex_l0_clkreq_n_pk0, pex_l0_rst_n_pk1, > + pex_l1_clkreq_n_pk2, pex_l1_rst_n_pk3, > + pex_l2_clkreq_n_pk4, pex_l2_rst_n_pk5, > + pex_l3_clkreq_n_pk6, pex_l3_rst_n_pk7, > + pex_l4_clkreq_n_pl0, pex_l4_rst_n_pl1, > + pex_wake_n_pl2, soc_gpio34_pl3, dp_aux_ch0_hpd_pm0, > + dp_aux_ch1_hpd_pm1, dp_aux_ch2_hpd_pm2, > + dp_aux_ch3_hpd_pm3, soc_gpio55_pm4, soc_gpio36_pm5, > + soc_gpio53_pm6, soc_gpio38_pm7, dp_aux_ch3_n_pn0, > + soc_gpio39_pn1, soc_gpio40_pn2, dp_aux_ch1_p_pn3, > + dp_aux_ch1_n_pn4, dp_aux_ch2_p_pn5, dp_aux_ch2_n_pn6, > + dp_aux_ch3_p_pn7, extperiph1_clk_pp0, > + extperiph2_clk_pp1, cam_i2c_scl_pp2, cam_i2c_sda_pp3, > + soc_gpio23_pp4, soc_gpio24_pp5, soc_gpio25_pp6, > + pwr_i2c_scl_pp7, pwr_i2c_sda_pq0, soc_gpio28_pq1, > + soc_gpio29_pq2, soc_gpio30_pq3, soc_gpio31_pq4, > + soc_gpio32_pq5, soc_gpio33_pq6, soc_gpio35_pq7, > + soc_gpio37_pr0, soc_gpio56_pr1, uart1_tx_pr2, > + uart1_rx_pr3, uart1_rts_pr4, uart1_cts_pr5, > + soc_gpio61_pw0, soc_gpio62_pw1, gpu_pwr_req_px0, > + cv_pwr_req_px1, gp_pwm2_px2, gp_pwm3_px3, uart2_tx_px4, > + uart2_rx_px5, uart2_rts_px6, uart2_cts_px7, spi3_sck_py0, > + spi3_miso_py1, spi3_mosi_py2, spi3_cs0_py3, > + spi3_cs1_py4, uart5_tx_py5, uart5_rx_py6, > + uart5_rts_py7, uart5_cts_pz0, usb_vbus_en0_pz1, > + usb_vbus_en1_pz2, spi1_sck_pz3, spi1_miso_pz4, > + spi1_mosi_pz5, spi1_cs0_pz6, spi1_cs1_pz7, > + spi5_sck_pac0, spi5_miso_pac1, spi5_mosi_pac2, > + spi5_cs0_pac3, soc_gpio57_pac4, soc_gpio58_pac5, > + soc_gpio59_pac6, soc_gpio60_pac7, soc_gpio45_pad0, > + soc_gpio46_pad1, soc_gpio47_pad2, soc_gpio48_pad3, > + ufs0_ref_clk_pae0, ufs0_rst_n_pae1, > + pex_l5_clkreq_n_paf0, pex_l5_rst_n_paf1, > + pex_l6_clkreq_n_paf2, pex_l6_rst_n_paf3, > + pex_l7_clkreq_n_pag0, pex_l7_rst_n_pag1, > + pex_l8_clkreq_n_pag2, pex_l8_rst_n_pag3, > + pex_l9_clkreq_n_pag4, pex_l9_rst_n_pag5, > + pex_l10_clkreq_n_pag6, pex_l10_rst_n_pag7, > + sdmmc1_comp, eqos_comp, qspi_comp, > + # drive groups > + drive_soc_gpio08_pb0, drive_soc_gpio36_pm5, > + drive_soc_gpio53_pm6, drive_soc_gpio55_pm4, > + drive_soc_gpio38_pm7, drive_soc_gpio39_pn1, > + drive_soc_gpio40_pn2, drive_dp_aux_ch0_hpd_pm0, > + drive_dp_aux_ch1_hpd_pm1, drive_dp_aux_ch2_hpd_pm2, > + drive_dp_aux_ch3_hpd_pm3, drive_dp_aux_ch1_p_pn3, > + drive_dp_aux_ch1_n_pn4, drive_dp_aux_ch2_p_pn5, > + drive_dp_aux_ch2_n_pn6, drive_dp_aux_ch3_p_pn7, > + drive_dp_aux_ch3_n_pn0, drive_pex_l2_clkreq_n_pk4, > + drive_pex_wake_n_pl2, drive_pex_l1_clkreq_n_pk2, > + drive_pex_l1_rst_n_pk3, drive_pex_l0_clkreq_n_pk0, > + drive_pex_l0_rst_n_pk1, drive_pex_l2_rst_n_pk5, > + drive_pex_l3_clkreq_n_pk6, drive_pex_l3_rst_n_pk7, > + drive_pex_l4_clkreq_n_pl0, drive_pex_l4_rst_n_pl1, > + drive_soc_gpio34_pl3, drive_pex_l5_clkreq_n_paf0, > + drive_pex_l5_rst_n_paf1, drive_pex_l6_clkreq_n_paf2, > + drive_pex_l6_rst_n_paf3, drive_pex_l10_clkreq_n_pag6, > + drive_pex_l10_rst_n_pag7, drive_pex_l7_clkreq_n_pag0, > + drive_pex_l7_rst_n_pag1, drive_pex_l8_clkreq_n_pag2, > + drive_pex_l8_rst_n_pag3, drive_pex_l9_clkreq_n_pag4, > + drive_pex_l9_rst_n_pag5, drive_sdmmc1_clk_pj0, > + drive_sdmmc1_cmd_pj1, drive_sdmmc1_dat3_pj5, > + drive_sdmmc1_dat2_pj4, drive_sdmmc1_dat1_pj3, > + drive_sdmmc1_dat0_pj2 ] > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + #include <dt-bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra.h> > + > + pinmux@2430000 { > + compatible = "nvidia,tegra234-pinmux"; > + reg = <0x2430000 0x17000>; > + > + pinctrl-names = "pex_rst"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&pex_rst_c5_out_state>; > + > + pex_rst_c5_out_state: pinmux-pex-rst-c5-out { > + pexrst { > + nvidia,pins = "pex_l5_rst_n_paf1"; > + nvidia,schmitt = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; > + nvidia,enable-input = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; > + nvidia,io-hv = <TEGRA_PIN_ENABLE>; > + nvidia,tristate = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; > + nvidia,pull = <TEGRA_PIN_PULL_NONE>; > + }; > + }; > + }; > +... > -- > 2.40.0 >
On 20/04/2023 19:06, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> >>>> If we were, then yes, we would need to use unevaluatedProperties and >>>> that can get complicated. But again, in this case we're merely >>>> overriding existing properties with more specific values, which means >>>> that both the standard binding applies and then things are narrowed down >>>> by the values defined for each compatible. >> >> Okay, so I'm starting to get a bit lost here, so maybe it's time for >> another proposal. I've tried splitting this up more so that we avoid >> the if/else block. Would you mind taking another look to see if the >> patch below is any more readable to you? >> >> Thierry > > Krzysztof, > > any thoughts on this proposal? I did not check the code thoroughly, but approach, assuming it works, looks fine. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..56b8d364c605 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: NVIDIA Tegra234 Pinmux Controller + +maintainers: + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> + +properties: + compatible: + enum: + - nvidia,tegra234-pinmux + - nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon + + reg: + items: + - description: pinmux registers + +patternProperties: + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-_]+)?$": + type: object + properties: + phandle: true + + # pin groups + additionalProperties: + $ref: nvidia,tegra-pinmux-common.yaml + unevaluatedProperties: false + properties: + nvidia,function: + enum: [ gp, uartc, i2c8, spi2, i2c2, can1, can0, rsvd0, eth0, eth2, + eth1, dp, eth3, i2c4, i2c7, i2c9, eqos, pe2, pe1, pe0, pe3, + pe4, pe5, pe6, pe7, pe8, pe9, pe10, qspi0, qspi1, qpsi, + sdmmc1, sce, soc, gpio, hdmi, ufs0, spi3, spi1, uartb, uarte, + usb, extperiph2, extperiph1, i2c3, vi0, i2c5, uarta, uartd, + i2c1, i2s4, i2s6, aud, spi5, touch, uartj, rsvd1, wdt, tsc, + dmic3, led, vi0_alt, i2s5, nv, extperiph3, extperiph4, spi4, + ccla, i2s1, i2s2, i2s3, i2s8, rsvd2, dmic5, dca, displayb, + displaya, vi1, dcb, dmic1, dmic4, i2s7, dmic2, dspk0, rsvd3, + tsc_alt, istctrl, vi1_alt, dspk1, igpu ] + + nvidia,pull: true + nvidia,tristate: true + nvidia,schmitt: true + nvidia,enable-input: true + nvidia,open-drain: true + nvidia,lock: true + nvidia,drive-type: true + nvidia,io-hv: true + + required: + - nvidia,pins + +additionalProperties: false + +allOf: + - if: + properties: + compatible: + const: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux + then: + patternProperties: + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-_]+)?$": + type: object + additionalProperties: + properties: + nvidia,pins: + description: An array of strings. Each string contains the name + of a pin or group. Valid values for these names are listed + below. + + items: + enum: [ dap6_sclk_pa0, dap6_dout_pa1, dap6_din_pa2, + dap6_fs_pa3, dap4_sclk_pa4, dap4_dout_pa5, + dap4_din_pa6, dap4_fs_pa7, soc_gpio08_pb0, + qspi0_sck_pc0, qspi0_cs_n_pc1, + qspi0_io0_pc2, qspi0_io1_pc3, qspi0_io2_pc4, + qspi0_io3_pc5, qspi1_sck_pc6, qspi1_cs_n_pc7, + qspi1_io0_pd0, qspi1_io1_pd1, qspi1_io2_pd2, + qspi1_io3_pd3, eqos_txc_pe0, eqos_td0_pe1, + eqos_td1_pe2, eqos_td2_pe3, eqos_td3_pe4, + eqos_tx_ctl_pe5, eqos_rd0_pe6, eqos_rd1_pe7, + eqos_rd2_pf0, eqos_rd3_pf1, eqos_rx_ctl_pf2, + eqos_rxc_pf3, eqos_sma_mdio_pf4, eqos_sma_mdc_pf5, + soc_gpio13_pg0, soc_gpio14_pg1, soc_gpio15_pg2, + soc_gpio16_pg3, soc_gpio17_pg4, soc_gpio18_pg5, + soc_gpio19_pg6, soc_gpio20_pg7, soc_gpio21_ph0, + soc_gpio22_ph1, soc_gpio06_ph2, uart4_tx_ph3, + uart4_rx_ph4, uart4_rts_ph5, uart4_cts_ph6, + soc_gpio41_ph7, soc_gpio42_pi0, soc_gpio43_pi1, + soc_gpio44_pi2, gen1_i2c_scl_pi3, gen1_i2c_sda_pi4, + cpu_pwr_req_pi5, soc_gpio07_pi6, + sdmmc1_clk_pj0, sdmmc1_cmd_pj1, sdmmc1_dat0_pj2, + sdmmc1_dat1_pj3, sdmmc1_dat2_pj4, sdmmc1_dat3_pj5, + pex_l0_clkreq_n_pk0, pex_l0_rst_n_pk1, + pex_l1_clkreq_n_pk2, pex_l1_rst_n_pk3, + pex_l2_clkreq_n_pk4, pex_l2_rst_n_pk5, + pex_l3_clkreq_n_pk6, pex_l3_rst_n_pk7, + pex_l4_clkreq_n_pl0, pex_l4_rst_n_pl1, + pex_wake_n_pl2, soc_gpio34_pl3, dp_aux_ch0_hpd_pm0, + dp_aux_ch1_hpd_pm1, dp_aux_ch2_hpd_pm2, + dp_aux_ch3_hpd_pm3, soc_gpio55_pm4, soc_gpio36_pm5, + soc_gpio53_pm6, soc_gpio38_pm7, dp_aux_ch3_n_pn0, + soc_gpio39_pn1, soc_gpio40_pn2, dp_aux_ch1_p_pn3, + dp_aux_ch1_n_pn4, dp_aux_ch2_p_pn5, dp_aux_ch2_n_pn6, + dp_aux_ch3_p_pn7, extperiph1_clk_pp0, + extperiph2_clk_pp1, cam_i2c_scl_pp2, cam_i2c_sda_pp3, + soc_gpio23_pp4, soc_gpio24_pp5, soc_gpio25_pp6, + pwr_i2c_scl_pp7, pwr_i2c_sda_pq0, soc_gpio28_pq1, + soc_gpio29_pq2, soc_gpio30_pq3, soc_gpio31_pq4, + soc_gpio32_pq5, soc_gpio33_pq6, soc_gpio35_pq7, + soc_gpio37_pr0, soc_gpio56_pr1, uart1_tx_pr2, + uart1_rx_pr3, uart1_rts_pr4, uart1_cts_pr5, + soc_gpio61_pw0, soc_gpio62_pw1, gpu_pwr_req_px0, cv_pwr_req_px1, + gp_pwm2_px2, gp_pwm3_px3, uart2_tx_px4, uart2_rx_px5, + uart2_rts_px6, uart2_cts_px7, spi3_sck_py0, + spi3_miso_py1, spi3_mosi_py2, spi3_cs0_py3, + spi3_cs1_py4, uart5_tx_py5, uart5_rx_py6, + uart5_rts_py7, uart5_cts_pz0, usb_vbus_en0_pz1, + usb_vbus_en1_pz2, spi1_sck_pz3, spi1_miso_pz4, + spi1_mosi_pz5, spi1_cs0_pz6, spi1_cs1_pz7, + spi5_sck_pac0, spi5_miso_pac1, spi5_mosi_pac2, + spi5_cs0_pac3, soc_gpio57_pac4, soc_gpio58_pac5, + soc_gpio59_pac6, soc_gpio60_pac7, soc_gpio45_pad0, + soc_gpio46_pad1, soc_gpio47_pad2, soc_gpio48_pad3, + ufs0_ref_clk_pae0, ufs0_rst_n_pae1, + pex_l5_clkreq_n_paf0, pex_l5_rst_n_paf1, + pex_l6_clkreq_n_paf2, pex_l6_rst_n_paf3, + pex_l7_clkreq_n_pag0, pex_l7_rst_n_pag1, + pex_l8_clkreq_n_pag2, pex_l8_rst_n_pag3, + pex_l9_clkreq_n_pag4, pex_l9_rst_n_pag5, + pex_l10_clkreq_n_pag6, pex_l10_rst_n_pag7, + sdmmc1_comp, eqos_comp, qspi_comp, + # drive groups + drive_soc_gpio08_pb0, drive_soc_gpio36_pm5, + drive_soc_gpio53_pm6, drive_soc_gpio55_pm4, + drive_soc_gpio38_pm7, drive_soc_gpio39_pn1, + drive_soc_gpio40_pn2, drive_dp_aux_ch0_hpd_pm0, + drive_dp_aux_ch1_hpd_pm1, drive_dp_aux_ch2_hpd_pm2, + drive_dp_aux_ch3_hpd_pm3, drive_dp_aux_ch1_p_pn3, + drive_dp_aux_ch1_n_pn4, drive_dp_aux_ch2_p_pn5, + drive_dp_aux_ch2_n_pn6, drive_dp_aux_ch3_p_pn7, + drive_dp_aux_ch3_n_pn0, drive_pex_l2_clkreq_n_pk4, + drive_pex_wake_n_pl2, drive_pex_l1_clkreq_n_pk2, + drive_pex_l1_rst_n_pk3, drive_pex_l0_clkreq_n_pk0, + drive_pex_l0_rst_n_pk1, drive_pex_l2_rst_n_pk5, + drive_pex_l3_clkreq_n_pk6, drive_pex_l3_rst_n_pk7, + drive_pex_l4_clkreq_n_pl0, drive_pex_l4_rst_n_pl1, + drive_soc_gpio34_pl3, drive_pex_l5_clkreq_n_paf0, + drive_pex_l5_rst_n_paf1, drive_pex_l6_clkreq_n_paf2, + drive_pex_l6_rst_n_paf3, drive_pex_l10_clkreq_n_pag6, + drive_pex_l10_rst_n_pag7, drive_pex_l7_clkreq_n_pag0, + drive_pex_l7_rst_n_pag1, drive_pex_l8_clkreq_n_pag2, + drive_pex_l8_rst_n_pag3, drive_pex_l9_clkreq_n_pag4, + drive_pex_l9_rst_n_pag5, drive_sdmmc1_clk_pj0, + drive_sdmmc1_cmd_pj1, drive_sdmmc1_dat3_pj5, + drive_sdmmc1_dat2_pj4, drive_sdmmc1_dat1_pj3, + drive_sdmmc1_dat0_pj2 ] + + - if: + properties: + compatible: + const: nvidia,tegra234-pinmux-aon + then: + patternProperties: + "^pinmux(-[a-z0-9-_]+)?$": + type: object + additionalProperties: + properties: + nvidia,pins: + items: + enum: [ can0_dout_paa0, can0_din_paa1, can1_dout_paa2, + can1_din_paa3, can0_stb_paa4, can0_en_paa5, + soc_gpio49_paa6, can0_err_paa7, can1_stb_pbb0, + can1_en_pbb1, soc_gpio50_pbb2, can1_err_pbb3, + spi2_sck_pcc0, spi2_miso_pcc1, spi2_mosi_pcc2, + spi2_cs0_pcc3, touch_clk_pcc4, uart3_tx_pcc5, + uart3_rx_pcc6, gen2_i2c_scl_pcc7, gen2_i2c_sda_pdd0, + gen8_i2c_scl_pdd1, gen8_i2c_sda_pdd2, + sce_error_pee0, vcomp_alert_pee1, + ao_retention_n_pee2, batt_oc_pee3, power_on_pee4, + soc_gpio26_pee5, soc_gpio27_pee6, bootv_ctl_n_pee7, + hdmi_cec_pgg0, + # drive groups + drive_touch_clk_pcc4, drive_uart3_rx_pcc6, + drive_uart3_tx_pcc5, drive_gen8_i2c_sda_pdd2, + drive_gen8_i2c_scl_pdd1, drive_spi2_mosi_pcc2, + drive_gen2_i2c_scl_pcc7, drive_spi2_cs0_pcc3, + drive_gen2_i2c_sda_pdd0, drive_spi2_sck_pcc0, + drive_spi2_miso_pcc1, drive_can1_dout_paa2, + drive_can1_din_paa3, drive_can0_dout_paa0, + drive_can0_din_paa1, drive_can0_stb_paa4, + drive_can0_en_paa5, drive_soc_gpio49_paa6, + drive_can0_err_paa7, drive_can1_stb_pbb0, + drive_can1_en_pbb1, drive_soc_gpio50_pbb2, + drive_can1_err_pbb3, drive_sce_error_pee0, + drive_batt_oc_pee3, drive_bootv_ctl_n_pee7, + drive_power_on_pee4, drive_soc_gpio26_pee5, + drive_soc_gpio27_pee6, drive_ao_retention_n_pee2, + drive_vcomp_alert_pee1, drive_hdmi_cec_pgg0 ] + +required: + - compatible + - reg + +examples: + - | + #include <dt-bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra.h> + + pinmux@2430000 { + compatible = "nvidia,tegra234-pinmux"; + reg = <0x2430000 0x17000>; + + pinctrl-names = "pex_rst"; + pinctrl-0 = <&pex_rst_c5_out_state>; + + pex_rst_c5_out_state: pinmux-pex-rst-c5-out { + pex_rst { + nvidia,pins = "pex_l5_rst_n_pgg1"; + nvidia,schmitt = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; + nvidia,enable-input = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; + nvidia,io-hv = <TEGRA_PIN_ENABLE>; + nvidia,tristate = <TEGRA_PIN_DISABLE>; + nvidia,pull = <TEGRA_PIN_PULL_NONE>; + }; + }; + }; +...
Add DT binding doc for Tegra234 pinmux driver. Signed-off-by: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@nvidia.com> --- .../pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml | 232 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 232 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/nvidia,tegra234-pinmux.yaml