RE: [PATCH V2] arm64: dts: fix drive strength macros as per FSD HW UM

[Padmanabhan Rajanbabu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski [mailto:krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 October 2022 02:28 AM
> To: Padmanabhan Rajanbabu <p.rajanbabu@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx; chanho61.park@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] arm64: dts: fix drive strength macros as per FSD HW
> UM
> 
> On 11/10/2022 04:03, Padmanabhan Rajanbabu wrote:
> > Drive strength macros defined for FSD platform is not reflecting
> > actual name and values as per HW UM. FSD SoC pinctrl has following
> > four levels of
> 
> s/name/names/
Okay.
> 
> > drive-strength and their corresponding values:
> > Level-1 <-> 0
> > Level-2 <-> 1
> > Level-4 <-> 2
> > Level-6 <-> 3
> >
> > The commit 684dac402f21 ("arm64: dts: fsd: Add initial pinctrl
> > support") used drive strength macros defined for Exynos4 SoC family.
> > For some IPs the macros values of Exynos4 matched and worked well, but
> > Exynos4 SoC family drive-strength (names and values) is not exactly
> > matching with FSD SoC.
> >
> > Fix the drive strength macros to reflect actual names and values given
> > in FSD HW UM. This also ensures that the existing peripherals in
> > device tree file is using correct drive strength MACROs to function as
> > expected.
> >
> > Fixes: 684dac402f21 ("arm64: dts: fsd: Add initial pinctrl support")
> > Signed-off-by: Padmanabhan Rajanbabu <p.rajanbabu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> Rest of commit msg looks ok.
> 
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/fsd-pinctrl.dtsi | 34 +++++++++++-----------
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/fsd-pinctrl.h    |  6 ++--
> >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/fsd-pinctrl.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/fsd-pinctrl.dtsi
> > index d0abb9aa0e9e..e3852c946352 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/fsd-pinctrl.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/fsd-pinctrl.dtsi
> > @@ -55,14 +55,14 @@
> >  		samsung,pins = "gpf5-0";
> >  		samsung,pin-function = <FSD_PIN_FUNC_2>;
> >  		samsung,pin-pud = <FSD_PIN_PULL_NONE>;
> > -		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV2>;
> > +		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV4>;
> >  	};
> >
> >  	ufs_refclk_out: ufs-refclk-out-pins {
> >  		samsung,pins = "gpf5-1";
> >  		samsung,pin-function = <FSD_PIN_FUNC_2>;
> >  		samsung,pin-pud = <FSD_PIN_PULL_NONE>;
> > -		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV2>;
> > +		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV4>;
> >  	};
> >  };
> >
> > @@ -239,105 +239,105 @@
> >  		samsung,pins = "gpb6-1";
> >  		samsung,pin-function = <FSD_PIN_FUNC_2>;
> >  		samsung,pin-pud = <FSD_PIN_PULL_UP>;
> > -		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV2>;
> > +		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV4>;
> >  	};
> >
> >  	pwm1_out: pwm1-out-pins {
> >  		samsung,pins = "gpb6-5";
> >  		samsung,pin-function = <FSD_PIN_FUNC_2>;
> >  		samsung,pin-pud = <FSD_PIN_PULL_UP>;
> > -		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV2>;
> > +		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV4>;
> >  	};
> >
> >  	hs_i2c0_bus: hs-i2c0-bus-pins {
> >  		samsung,pins = "gpb0-0", "gpb0-1";
> >  		samsung,pin-function = <FSD_PIN_FUNC_2>;
> >  		samsung,pin-pud = <FSD_PIN_PULL_UP>;
> > -		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV1>;
> > +		samsung,pin-drv = <FSD_PIN_DRV_LV4>;
> 
> You are now changing both the value for register and the meaning (name).
> Your commit msg indicated that the names are not correct, not the values.
> Based on the commit msg, I expect the DTBs are the same. Are they? If not,
> it these are two different commits with their own explanations/reasoning.
In some cases, yes, both name and values requires modification. I understood 
that I have to split this into two patches, correcting the MACRO names and values
in one patch and fixing the drive strength for some of the IPs in other patch.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof