Pinmux bindings proposal

[Thomas Abraham]

On 20 January 2012 15:35, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> * Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham at linaro.org> [120119 10:05]:
>> On 19 January 2012 23:50, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to understand the need for populating the
>> pinmux/pingroups tables from dt. The question here is when we have
>> something like
>>
>> pins = <&pinctrl0 0x0030 0x15 0x15 0x7>;
>>
>> which specifies the values that need to be written to the hardware
>> registers, would populating pinmux/pingroup tables from dt required.
>> The SoC specific pinctrl driver can provide a way (with the help of
>> pinctrl core) to translate these values and write to corresponding
>> hardware registers. Is there any particular reason for populating the
>> pinmux/pingroups tables from dt?
>
> Hmm I see. Yes it's still needed as we only want to parse the DT once
> because it's slower unless it was one time only configuration during
> init.

Ok. The time spent on searching for the pin-config property can be
reduced by having the device driver (say, i2c) keep a pointer to all
the pinconfig properties in its node. The next time a driver needs to
reconfigure the pins, the search time can be reduced. The time to
parse the property values though would still be applicable. But I
would still not opt to build pinmux/pinconfig/pindesc tables from dt.

>
> If you only need to set pins once during the init, then we could add
> an option for freeing all or most pins after init. That's what we
> have for the current mach-omap2 mux framework as only few pins need
> to be dynamically remuxed. That will require some changes to the
> pinctrl framework though. We would need flags for each pin from DT
> for init_only/dynamic.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony

Thanks,
Thomas.