| Message ID | 20230904115816.1237684-3-s.hauer@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Make Rockchip IO domains dependency from other devices explicit | expand |
On 2023-09-04 12:58, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This > list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the > pinctrl driver are supplied from. > > Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups > which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access > the regulators an IO domain is driven from. > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> > --- > .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: > Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this should > point to the PMUGRF syscon. > > + rockchip,io-domains: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array > + description: > + Phandles to io domains > + > "#address-cells": > enum: [1, 2] > > @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: > - description: > The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig options > to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. > - > + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: I don't think "on" is a particularly descriptive or useful property name for something that has no "off" state. Furthermore it's no help at all if the DT consumer *is* the bootloader that's expected to configure this in the first place. IMO it would seem a lot more sensible to have an integer (or enum) property which describes the actual value for the initial I/O domain setting. Then Linux can choose to assume the presence of the property at all implies that the bootloader should have set it up already, but also has the option of actively enforcing it as well if we want to. > + type: boolean > + description: > + If true assume that the io domain needed for this pin group has been > + configured correctly by the bootloader. This is needed to break cyclic > + dependencies introduced when a io domain needs a regulator that can be > + accessed through pins configured here. This is describing a Linux implementation detail, not the binding itself. There's no technical reason a DT consumer couldn't already figure this much out from the existing topology (by observing that the pinctrl consumer is a grandparent of the I/O domain's supply). Thanks, Robin. > examples: > - | > #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 01:58:15PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This > list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the > pinctrl driver are supplied from. Is there an actual need for multiple IO devices with multiple pinctrl blocks? If not, you don't need a property, just lookup the IO domain node by compatible. > > Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups > which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access > the regulators an IO domain is driven from. > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> > --- > .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: > Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this should > point to the PMUGRF syscon. > > + rockchip,io-domains: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array > + description: > + Phandles to io domains > + > "#address-cells": > enum: [1, 2] > > @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: > - description: > The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig options > to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. > - > + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: > + type: boolean > + description: > + If true assume that the io domain needed for this pin group has been > + configured correctly by the bootloader. This is needed to break cyclic > + dependencies introduced when a io domain needs a regulator that can be > + accessed through pins configured here. > examples: > - | > #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h> > -- > 2.39.2 >
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 10:03:20AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2023-09-04 12:58, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This > > list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the > > pinctrl driver are supplied from. > > > > Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups > > which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access > > the regulators an IO domain is driven from. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> > > --- > > .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > > index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > > @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: > > Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this should > > point to the PMUGRF syscon. > > + rockchip,io-domains: > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array > > + description: > > + Phandles to io domains > > + > > "#address-cells": > > enum: [1, 2] > > @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: > > - description: > > The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig options > > to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. > > - > > + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: > > I don't think "on" is a particularly descriptive or useful property name for > something that has no "off" state. In fact it has an "off" state. A IO Domain can be disabled in the SoC registers and also the corresponding regulator can be disabled. > Furthermore it's no help at all if the DT > consumer *is* the bootloader that's expected to configure this in the first > place. IMO it would seem a lot more sensible to have an integer (or enum) > property which describes the actual value for the initial I/O domain > setting. I agree though that a particular setting instead of a boolean is better and could help the bootloader. > Then Linux can choose to assume the presence of the property at all > implies that the bootloader should have set it up already, but also has the > option of actively enforcing it as well if we want to. Ok. Thanks, Sascha
Sascha, Robin, On 9/5/23 11:03, Robin Murphy wrote: > [You don't often get email from robin.murphy@arm.com. Learn why this is > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > On 2023-09-04 12:58, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This >> list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the >> pinctrl driver are supplied from. >> >> Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups >> which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access >> the regulators an IO domain is driven from. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> >> --- >> .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >> index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >> @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: >> Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this >> should >> point to the PMUGRF syscon. >> >> + rockchip,io-domains: >> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array >> + description: >> + Phandles to io domains >> + >> "#address-cells": >> enum: [1, 2] >> >> @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: >> - description: >> The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig >> options >> to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. >> - >> + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: > > I don't think "on" is a particularly descriptive or useful property name > for something that has no "off" state. Furthermore it's no help at all > if the DT consumer *is* the bootloader that's expected to configure this > in the first place. IMO it would seem a lot more sensible to have an > integer (or enum) property which describes the actual value for the > initial I/O domain setting. Then Linux can choose to assume the presence > of the property at all implies that the bootloader should have set it up > already, but also has the option of actively enforcing it as well if we > want to. > This is actually highly misleading. Whether the bootloader handles IO domains for pinctrl or not absolutely doesn't matter to the kernel since the kernel is required to handle IO domain for pinctrl as well. They're not exclusive, they are not complementary. The point is that the voltage of the IO domain **can** change at runtime, at any point in time. We could theoretically have the bootloader require the regulator to be running at 1.8V and then the kernel at 3.3V, both should work (can't think of anything that would work like that but why not, the kernel IO domain driver is supposed to handle that within the kernel runtime even). The issue here is that we want to avoid a cyclic dependency, where the pinctrl is needed for the IO domain regulator that we're trying to add as a dependency of the same pinctrl. There needs to be either some smart detection or a property to specify that the IO domain dependency needs to be ignored. This seems unfortunately to be for working around how Linux handles dependencies between devices and doesn't allow cyclic dependencies. At the same time, I do not know if there's anyway to not work around it? >> + type: boolean >> + description: >> + If true assume that the io domain needed for this pin group >> has been >> + configured correctly by the bootloader. This is needed to >> break cyclic >> + dependencies introduced when a io domain needs a regulator >> that can be >> + accessed through pins configured here. > > This is describing a Linux implementation detail, not the binding > itself. There's no technical reason a DT consumer couldn't already > figure this much out from the existing topology (by observing that the > pinctrl consumer is a grandparent of the I/O domain's supply). > I am guessing you're suggesting to have some complex handling in the driver to detect those cyclic dependencies and ignore the IO domain dependency for the pinctrl pins where this happens? This can actually be quite difficult to detect reliably: We need to go through the phandle in pinctrl to the IO domain DT node, then check all phandles there to other DT node (likely regulators), then we need to look into the pinctrl-0 (actually, the one for "default" maybe, but what about the other states of pinctrl?) phandles and then parse the pinctrt DT nodes to see if they're pointing to the same DT node as the one we're trying to use. Here, we also do not know if the regulator DT node has other dependencies that needs to be accounted for. I haven't put too much thoughts into it so maybe it's easier/harder than what I'm saying here (or maybe I'm completely off too...). One of the issues we're having here too is that we lose granularity. There are multiple domains inside an IO domain device and here we make the whole pinctrl device depend on all domains from one IO domain device (there can be multiple ones) while it is factually (on the HW level) only dependent on one domain. Considering (if I remember correctly) Heiko highly suggested we think about adding child nodes to the IO domain devices to have a DT node per domain in the IO domain device, how would this work with the suggested DT binding? Cheers, Quentin
Hi Rob, On 9/5/23 20:14, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 01:58:15PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This >> list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the >> pinctrl driver are supplied from. > > Is there an actual need for multiple IO devices with multiple pinctrl > blocks? If not, you don't need a property, just lookup the IO domain > node by compatible. > Yes. There can be multiple IO domain devices on Rockchip SoCs and we typically have only one pinctrl controller. Each pinctrl "pin" (for a lack of the appropriate term to use here) belongs to one domain of one of the IO domain controller/device. However what I don't like here is that we do not explicit this link between the pinctrl "pin" and the IO domain controller it belongs to (even less so on which domain of the IO domain controller, which to be fair we do not represent in the DT at the moment except through a phandle property in the IO domain controller, c.f. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/rockchip-io-domain.yaml#L84). Cheers, Quentin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:20:26AM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Sascha, Robin, > > On 9/5/23 11:03, Robin Murphy wrote: > > [You don't often get email from robin.murphy@arm.com. Learn why this is > > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > > + type: boolean > > > + description: > > > + If true assume that the io domain needed for this pin > > > group has been > > > + configured correctly by the bootloader. This is needed to > > > break cyclic > > > + dependencies introduced when a io domain needs a > > > regulator that can be > > > + accessed through pins configured here. > > > > This is describing a Linux implementation detail, not the binding > > itself. There's no technical reason a DT consumer couldn't already > > figure this much out from the existing topology (by observing that the > > pinctrl consumer is a grandparent of the I/O domain's supply). > > > > I am guessing you're suggesting to have some complex handling in the driver > to detect those cyclic dependencies and ignore the IO domain dependency for > the pinctrl pins where this happens? I haven't read this as a suggestion, but only as an argument to make it clear that I should describe the binding rather than anticipating how it should be used. I may have misunderstood it though. > One of the issues we're having here too is that we lose granularity. There > are multiple domains inside an IO domain device and here we make the whole > pinctrl device depend on all domains from one IO domain device (there can be > multiple ones) while it is factually (on the HW level) only dependent on one > domain. Considering (if I remember correctly) Heiko highly suggested we > think about adding child nodes to the IO domain devices to have a DT node > per domain in the IO domain device, how would this work with the suggested > DT binding? I started implementing that. I have moved the IO domains into subnodes of the IO domain controller and started adding phandles from the pin groups in rk3568-pinctrl.dtsi to the corresponding IO domains. After a couple of hours I had phandles for around a quarter of the existing groups of only one SoC, so doing this for all SoCs would really be a cumbersome job. In the end I realized this doesn't solve any problem. Also adding the properties I suggested doesn't prevent us from adding the more specific dependencies from the pins to their actual IO domains later. Sascha
On 2023-09-06 08:21, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 10:03:20AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2023-09-04 12:58, Sascha Hauer wrote: >>> Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This >>> list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the >>> pinctrl driver are supplied from. >>> >>> Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups >>> which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access >>> the regulators an IO domain is driven from. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >>> index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml >>> @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: >>> Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this should >>> point to the PMUGRF syscon. >>> + rockchip,io-domains: >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array >>> + description: >>> + Phandles to io domains >>> + >>> "#address-cells": >>> enum: [1, 2] >>> @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: >>> - description: >>> The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig options >>> to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. >>> - >>> + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: >> >> I don't think "on" is a particularly descriptive or useful property name for >> something that has no "off" state. > > In fact it has an "off" state. A IO Domain can be disabled in the SoC > registers Oh, is that a thing on newer SoCs? At least in the RK3399 TRM the only I/O-domain-related control I can find is the 1.8V/3.0V logic level threshold in GRF_IO_VSEL (plus the one outlier in PMUGRF_SOC_CON0). > and also the corresponding regulator can be disabled. ...which is clearly a property of the regulator, not of its consumers ;) However it's also not a meaningful state in this context anyway, since if the supply was actually off, and thus we were unable to communicate with the PMIC to turn it on... oh dear. Cheers, Robin. >> Furthermore it's no help at all if the DT >> consumer *is* the bootloader that's expected to configure this in the first >> place. IMO it would seem a lot more sensible to have an integer (or enum) >> property which describes the actual value for the initial I/O domain >> setting. > > I agree though that a particular setting instead of a boolean is better > and could help the bootloader. > >> Then Linux can choose to assume the presence of the property at all >> implies that the bootloader should have set it up already, but also has the >> option of actively enforcing it as well if we want to. > > Ok. > > Thanks, > Sascha >
On 06/09/2023 11:19 am, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:20:26AM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote: >> Sascha, Robin, >> >> On 9/5/23 11:03, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> [You don't often get email from robin.murphy@arm.com. Learn why this is >>> important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >>> >>>> +ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ type: boolean >>>> +ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ description: >>>> +ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ If true assume that the io domain needed for this pin >>>> group has been >>>> +ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ configured correctly by the bootloader. This is needed to >>>> break cyclic >>>> +ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ dependencies introduced when a io domain needs a >>>> regulator that can be >>>> +ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ accessed through pins configured here. >>> >>> This is describing a Linux implementation detail, not the binding >>> itself. There's no technical reason a DT consumer couldn't already >>> figure this much out from the existing topology (by observing that the >>> pinctrl consumer is a grandparent of the I/O domain's supply). >>> >> >> I am guessing you're suggesting to have some complex handling in the driver >> to detect those cyclic dependencies and ignore the IO domain dependency for >> the pinctrl pins where this happens? > > I haven't read this as a suggestion, but only as an argument to make it > clear that I should describe the binding rather than anticipating > how it should be used. > > I may have misunderstood it though. Indeed it was more about the definition itself - an extra property isn't *needed* to break the cycle since the cycle is already fully described in DT, so anyone who can parse parents and phandles already has sufficient information to detect it and break it at any point they choose. However, as mentioned subsequently, breaking the cycle alone isn't enough to guarantee that things will actually work in general. AFAICS what we fundamentally need to know is the initial voltage of the supply regulator, to be able to short-circuit requiring the I/O domain in order to query it from the regulator itself, and instead just initialise the I/O domain directly. However that would still represent a bunch of fiddly extra DT parsing, so for practical purposes it seems reasonable to then short-cut that into directly describing the initial setting of the I/O domain on the node itself, such that the consumer of the binding can easily handle it all in a self-contained manner. Cheers, Robin >> One of the issues we're having here too is that we lose granularity. There >> are multiple domains inside an IO domain device and here we make the whole >> pinctrl device depend on all domains from one IO domain device (there can be >> multiple ones) while it is factually (on the HW level) only dependent on one >> domain. Considering (if I remember correctly) Heiko highly suggested we >> think about adding child nodes to the IO domain devices to have a DT node >> per domain in the IO domain device, how would this work with the suggested >> DT binding? > > I started implementing that. I have moved the IO domains into subnodes > of the IO domain controller and started adding phandles from the pin > groups in rk3568-pinctrl.dtsi to the corresponding IO domains. After a > couple of hours I had phandles for around a quarter of the existing > groups of only one SoC, so doing this for all SoCs would really be a > cumbersome job. > > In the end I realized this doesn't solve any problem. Also adding the > properties I suggested doesn't prevent us from adding the more specific > dependencies from the pins to their actual IO domains later. > > Sascha >
On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 05:35:26PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2023-09-06 08:21, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 10:03:20AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > On 2023-09-04 12:58, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This > > > > list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the > > > > pinctrl driver are supplied from. > > > > > > > > Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups > > > > which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access > > > > the regulators an IO domain is driven from. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> > > > > --- > > > > .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > > > > index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml > > > > @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: > > > > Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this should > > > > point to the PMUGRF syscon. > > > > + rockchip,io-domains: > > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array > > > > + description: > > > > + Phandles to io domains > > > > + > > > > "#address-cells": > > > > enum: [1, 2] > > > > @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: > > > > - description: > > > > The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig options > > > > to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. > > > > - > > > > + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: > > > > > > I don't think "on" is a particularly descriptive or useful property name for > > > something that has no "off" state. > > > > In fact it has an "off" state. A IO Domain can be disabled in the SoC > > registers > > Oh, is that a thing on newer SoCs? At least in the RK3399 TRM the only > I/O-domain-related control I can find is the 1.8V/3.0V logic level threshold > in GRF_IO_VSEL (plus the one outlier in PMUGRF_SOC_CON0). I didn't realize that it's new, the RK3568 is the first Rockchip SoC I work on, but yes, on RK3568 we have three bits per domain. One bit is to enable 1.8V, one to enable 2.5V and one for 3.3V. I would assume that clearing all bits means disable, and whatever strange things may happen when multiple bits are set... Sascha
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml index 10c335efe619e..92075419d29cf 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ properties: Required for at least rk3188 and rk3288. On the rk3368 this should point to the PMUGRF syscon. + rockchip,io-domains: + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array + description: + Phandles to io domains + "#address-cells": enum: [1, 2] @@ -137,7 +142,13 @@ additionalProperties: - description: The phandle of a node contains the generic pinconfig options to use as described in pinctrl-bindings.txt. - + rockchip,io-domain-boot-on: + type: boolean + description: + If true assume that the io domain needed for this pin group has been + configured correctly by the bootloader. This is needed to break cyclic + dependencies introduced when a io domain needs a regulator that can be + accessed through pins configured here. examples: - | #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
Add rockchip,io-domains property to the Rockchip pinctrl driver. This list of phandles points to the IO domain device(s) the pins of the pinctrl driver are supplied from. Also a rockchip,io-domain-boot-on property is added to pin groups which can be used for pin groups which themselves are needed to access the regulators an IO domain is driven from. Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> --- .../bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,pinctrl.yaml | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)