Re: [PATCH] dt: pinctrl: Document device tree binding

[Randy Dunlap]

On 03/09/2012 10:14 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:

> The core pin controller bindings define:
> * The fact that pin controllers expose pin configurations as nodes in
>   device tree.
> * That the bindings for those pin configuration nodes is defined by the
>   individual pin controller drivers.
> * A standardized set of properties for client devices to define numbered
>   or named pin configuration states, each referring to some number of the
>   afore-mentioned pin configuration nodes.
> * That the bindings for the client devices determines the set of numbered
>   or named states that must exist.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt          |  118 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..cce9f01
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
> +== Introduction ==
> +
> +Hardware modules that control pin multiplexing or configuration parameters
> +such as pull-up/down, tri-state, drive-strength etc are designated as pin
> +controllers. Each pin controller must be represented as a node in device tree,
> +just like any other hardware module.
> +
> +Hardware modules whose signals are affected by pin configuration are
> +designated client devices. Again, each client device must be represented as a
> +node in device tree, just like any other hardware module.
> +
> +For a client device to operate correctly, certain pin controllers must
> +set up certain specific pin configurations. Some client devices need a
> +single static pin configuration, e.g. set up during initialization. Others
> +need to reconfigure pins at run-time, for example to tri-state pins when the
> +device is inactive. Hence, each client device can define a set of named
> +states. The number and names of those states is defined by the client device's
> +own binding.
> +
> +The common pinctrl bindings defined in this file provide an infra-structure


                                                               infrastructure

> +for client device device tree nodes to map those state names to the pin


              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ on purpose?

> +configuration used by those states.
> +
> +Note that pin controllers themselves may also be client devices of themselves.
> +For example, a pin controller may set up its own "active" state when the
> +driver loads. This would allow representing a board's static pin configuration
> +in a single place, rather than splitting it across multiple client device
> +nodes. The decision to do this or not somewhat rests with the author of
> +individual board device tree files, and any requirements imposed by the
> +bindings for the individual client devices in use by that board, i.e. whether
> +they require certain specific named states for dynamic pin configuration.
> +
> +== Pinctrl client devices ==
> +
> +For each client device individually, every pin state is assigned an integer
> +ID. These numbers start at 0, and are contiguous. For each state ID, a unique
> +property exists to define the pin configuration. Each state may also be
> +assigned a name. When names are used, another property exists to map from
> +those names to the integer IDs.
> +
> +Each client device's own binding determines the set of states the must be
> +defined in its device tree node, and whether to define the set of state
> +IDs that must be provided, or whether to define the set of state names that
> +must be provided.
> +
> +Required properties:
> +pinctrl-0:	List of phandles, each pointing at a pin configuration
> +		node. These referenced pin configuration nodes must be child
> +		nodes of the pin controller that they configure. Multiple
> +		entries may exist in this list so that multiple pin
> +		controllers may be configured, or so that a state may be built
> +		from multiple nodes for a single pin controller, each
> +		contributing part of the overall configuration. See the next
> +		section of this document for details of the format of these
> +		pin configuration nodes.
> +
> +		In some cases, it may be useful to define a state, but for it
> +		to be empty. This may be required when a common IP block is
> +		used in an SoC either without a pin controller, or where the
> +		pin controller does not affect the HW module in question. If
> +		the binding for that IP block requires certain pin states to
> +		exist, they must still be defined, but may be left empty.
> +
> +Optional properties:
> +pinctrl-1:	List of phandles, each pointing at a pin configuration
> +		node within a pin controller.
> +...
> +pinctrl-n:	List of phandles, each pointing at a pin configuration
> +		node within a pin controller.
> +pinctrl-names:	The list of names to assign states. List entry 0 defines the
> +		name for integer state ID 0, list entry 1 for state ID 1, and
> +		so on.
> +
> +For example:
> +
> +	/* For a client device requiring named states */
> +	device {
> +		pinctrl-names = "active", "idle";
> +		pinctrl-0 = <&state_0_node_a>;
> +		pinctrl-1 = <&state_1_node_a &state_1_node_b>;
> +	};
> +
> +	/* For the same device if using state IDs */
> +	device {
> +		pinctrl-0 = <&state_0_node_a>;
> +		pinctrl-1 = <&state_1_node_a &state_1_node_b>;
> +	};
> +
> +== Pin controller devices ==
> +
> +Pin controller devices should contain the pin configuration nodes that client
> +devices reference.
> +
> +For example:
> +
> +	pincontroller {
> +		... /* Standard DT properties for the device itself elided */
> +
> +		state_0_node_a {
> +			...
> +		};
> +		state_1_node_a {
> +			...
> +		};
> +		state_1_node_b {
> +			...
> +		};
> +	}
> +
> +The contents of each of those pin configuration child nodes is defined
> +entirely by the binding for the individual pin controller device. There
> +exists no common standard for this content.
> +
> +The pin configuration nodes need not be direct children of the pin controller
> +device; they may be grand-children for example. Whether this is legal, and


                       grandchildren, for example.

> +whether there is any interaction between the child and intermediate parent
> +nodes, is again defined entirely by the binding for the individual pin
> +controller device.



-- 
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/