Hi Stephen, On 27 April 2016 at 10:24, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/27/2016 09:12 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On 19 April 2016 at 14:59, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> From: Stephen Warren <[email protected]> >>> >>> Remove funcmux calls from the Tegra I2C driver. Knowledge of pinmux >>> setup must come from either board files or DT; it should not be embedded >>> into board-agnostic driver code. The DT pinmux bindings do not allow >>> drivers to derive funcmux-style information, since the DT bindings are >>> pin-based whereas funcmux is controller-based, so there's no good way to >>> call the existing funcmux APIs from drivers. Converting drivers to use a >>> new (as yet non-existent in U-Boot) API that pulls pinmux information >>> from >>> DT isn't useful for Tegra, since Tegra's DT files don't contain any >>> per-device pinmux tables, so this would simply be extra code that has no >>> effect; doesn't actually set up the pinmux. We are left with moving the >>> pinmux setup functionality into board files. In theory the board files >>> could be converted later to use DT, but that would be a separate change. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> board/avionic-design/common/tamonten.c | 5 +++++ >>> board/nvidia/seaboard/seaboard.c | 3 +++ >>> board/nvidia/whistler/whistler.c | 1 + >>> board/toradex/colibri_t20/colibri_t20.c | 3 +++ >>> drivers/i2c/tegra_i2c.c | 19 ------------------- >>> 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> >> This should use driver model, which handles pinmux automatically if >> you have a pinctrl driver. > > > Can you define "automatic"? I don't understand exactly which benefit you're > describing there.
When you probe a device, its pinmux is set up automatically, so the explicit funcmux calls can go away. > > I'd rather keep this series as simple cleanup of existing code, and handle > any large-scale DM conversions separately later. That said, as full > disclosure, I'm certainly not signing up for any more work on pinctrl, > especially if it involves reading the pinmux tables from DT, as I see no > benefit in that. Note that in future chips the boot ROM will handle 100% of > static pinmux setup so there won't be a U-Boot driver for those SoCs going > forward. I'd rather not invest any more than minimal effort in something > that's going away. There's no need for it to read from DT, and it doesn't have to be comprehensive but I think you should create a pinctrl driver and put the funcmux stuff in that (along with processing your big tables of pinmux stuff). Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
