Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: add lpass lpi pin controller node
From: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu
Date: Wed Feb 09 2022 - 09:01:34 EST
On 2/9/2022 2:41 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Thanks for your time Stephen!!!
Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2022-02-08 07:34:13)
Add LPASS LPI pinctrl node required for Audio functionality on sc7280
based platforms.
Signed-off-by: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by: Venkata Prasad Potturu <quic_potturu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Venkata Prasad Potturu <quic_potturu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dtsi | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 150 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dtsi
index c7d6c46..4704a93 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dtsi
@@ -638,3 +638,153 @@
bias-pull-up;
};
};
Newline here.
Okay.
+&soc {
+ lpass_tlmm: pinctrl@33c0000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpass-lpi-pinctrl";
+ reg = <0 0x33c0000 0x0 0x20000>,
+ <0 0x3550000 0x0 0x10000>;
+ gpio-controller;
+ #gpio-cells = <2>;
+ gpio-ranges = <&lpass_tlmm 0 0 15>;
+
+ #clock-cells = <1>;
Presumably this doesn't change so it should be moved to the sc7280.dtsi
file as part of the soc node. It can be marked status = "disabled" if
it's not commonly used, but I suspect it is commonly used on sc7280?
Okay. will move to common dtsi file.
+
+ dmic01_active: dmic01-active-pins {
The '-pins' suffix is redundant. Please remove it.
Okay. will remove it.
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio6";
+ function = "dmic1_clk";
+ drive-strength = <8>;
+ output-high;
+ };
Please be consistent and have a newline between nodes.
Okay.
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio7";
+ function = "dmic1_data";
+ drive-strength = <8>;
+ input-enable;
+ };
+ };
+
+ dmic01_sleep: dmic01-sleep-pins {
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio6";
+ function = "dmic1_clk";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ bias-disable;
+ output-low;
+ };
+
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio7";
+ function = "dmic1_data";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ pull-down;
+ input-enable;
Why does input-enable matter? It's not a gpio.
Actually the same is fallowed in sm8250.dtsi. Verified without it and
working fine. Need take call on it.
+ };
+ };
+
+ dmic23_active: dmic02-active-pins {
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio8";
+ function = "dmic2_clk";
+ drive-strength = <8>;
+ output-high;
+ };
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio9";
+ function = "dmic2_data";
+ drive-strength = <8>;
+ input-enable;
+ };
+ };
+
+ dmic23_sleep: dmic02-sleep-pins {
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio8";
+ function = "dmic2_clk";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ bias-disable;
+ output-low;
+ };
+
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio9";
+ function = "dmic2_data";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ pull-down;
+ input-enable;
+ };
+ };
+
+ rx_swr_active: rx_swr-active-pins {
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio3";
+ function = "swr_rx_clk";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ slew-rate = <1>;
+ bias-disable;
+ };
+
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio4", "gpio5";
+ function = "swr_rx_data";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ slew-rate = <1>;
+ bias-bus-hold;
+ };
+ };
+
+ rx_swr_sleep: rx_swr-sleep-pins {
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio3";
+ function = "swr_rx_clk";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ input-enable;
+ bias-pull-down;
+ };
+
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio4", "gpio5";
+ function = "swr_rx_data";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ input-enable;
+ bias-pull-down;
+ };
+ };
+
+ tx_swr_active: tx_swr-active-pins {
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio0";
+ function = "swr_tx_clk";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ slew-rate = <1>;
+ bias-disable;
+ };
+
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio1", "gpio2", "gpio14";
+ function = "swr_tx_data";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ slew-rate = <1>;
+ bias-bus-hold;
+ };
+ };
+
+ tx_swr_sleep: tx_swr-sleep-pins {
No underscore in node names.
Okay.
+ clk {
+ pins = "gpio0";
+ function = "swr_tx_clk";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ input-enable;
+ bias-pull-down;
+ };
+
+ data {
+ pins = "gpio1", "gpio2", "gpio14";
+ function = "swr_tx_data";
+ drive-strength = <2>;
+ input-enable;
+ bias-bus-hold;
+ };
+ };
+ };
+};
--
2.7.4