On 15/04/16 17:41, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2016 09:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:For CSI you are right they are not included by the current DT binding
On 15/04/16 16:14, Laxman Dewangan wrote:Which dt binding docs have these?
I used pins as this is the property from pincon generic so that I canSo we need to reflect the hardware in device-tree and although yes the
use the generic implementation.
Here, I will not go to the pin level control as HW does not support pin
level control.
I will say the unit should be interface level. Should we say
IO_GROUP_CSIA, IO_GROUP_CSIB etc?
power-down for the CSI_x_xxx pads are all controlled together as a
single group, it does not feel right that we add a pseudo pin called
csix to represent these.
The CSI_x_xxx pads are already in device-tree and so why not add a
property to each of these pads which has the IO rail information for
power-down and voltage-select?
I looked for nvidia,tegra210-pinmux.txt and not able to find csi_xxx.
docs, however, the sdmmc1/3 pads are. So that makes things a bit more
messy as some are and some are not.
Here I dont want to refer the individual pins as control should be asI understand, however, at least for power-down control I don't see why
group.
we cannot refer to the individual pins and once all are inactive then
the rail can be powered down.
For switching the voltage it is a bit more complex, but may be we could
still look-up the IO rail based upon the pads the device uses.