[PATCH v1 4/9] pinctrl: tegra-xusb: Add USB PHY support

[Andrew Bresticker]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 05:30 PM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 06/18/2014 12:16 AM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>>>> In addition to the PCIe and SATA PHYs, the XUSB pad controller also
>>>> supports 3 UTMI, 2 HSIC, and 2 USB3 PHYs.  Each USB3 PHY uses a single
>>>> PCIe or SATA lane and is mapped to one of the three UTMI ports.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra-xusb.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra-xusb.c
>>>
>>>> @@ -372,6 +720,193 @@ static int tegra_xusb_padctl_pinconf_group_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pinctrl,
>>>>                       padctl_writel(padctl, regval, lane->offset);
>>>>                       break;
>>>>
>>>> +             case TEGRA_XUSB_PADCTL_USB3_PORT_NUM:
>>>> +                     if (value >= TEGRA_XUSB_PADCTL_USB3_PORTS) {
>>>> +                             dev_err(padctl->dev, "Invalid USB3 port: %lu\n",
>>>> +                                     value);
>>>> +                             return -EINVAL;
>>>> +                     }
>>>> +                     if (!is_pcie_sata_lane(group)) {
>>>> +                             dev_err(padctl->dev,
>>>> +                                     "USB3 port not applicable for pin %d\n",
>>>> +                                     group);
>>>> +                             return -EINVAL;
>>>> +                     }
>>>> +                     padctl->usb3_ports[value].lane = group;
>>>> +                     break;
>>>
>>> It feels odd to use pinctrl for a SW-only purpose. In other words, that
>>> chunk of code isn't writing the pinconf data to HW, but rather some
>>> internal variable.
>>
>> Well the mapping of lanes to USB3 ports is a hardware property and we
>> do use it when programming the hardware later to choose which set of
>> lane registers to program given a USB3 port, but it's true that it's
>> not some value we program into HW directly.
>>
>>> Perhaps it would make more sense for the DT binding to represent this
>>> data directly in a custom property that's parsed at probe() time. That
>>> way, pinctrl only touches "real" HW stuff.
>>
>> I'm on the fence about this.  If you or others feel strongly about
>> this then I can make it a separate DT property and move it out of the
>> pinctrl properties.
>
> I'd certainly prefer to use pinctrl bindings only for things that get
> directly written into HW. Other configuration data should be easy to
> retrieve directly from properties.

Ok, I'll make a separate DT property for the USB3 port <-> lane
assignments then.