On 17:14-20230111, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> TI's AM62x SoC has a Time Sync Event Router, which enables routing a single
> input signal to multiple recipients. This facilitates syncing all the
> peripherals or processor cores to the input signal which acts as a master
> clock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi
> index 072903649d6e..4ce59170b6a7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi
> @@ -649,6 +649,15 @@ cpts@3d000 {
> };
> };
>
> + timesync_router: pinctrl@a40000 {
> + compatible = "pinctrl-single";
While I understand that the timesync router is essentially a mux,
pinctrl-single is a specific mux model that is used to model external
facing pins to internal signals - pin mux sections of control module
which is already in place is an example of the same.
Using the pinctrl-single scheme for timesync router is, IMHO, wrong
and limiting to potential functions that timesync router could need
enabling.
Is there a reason for using pinctrl-single rather than writing a
mux-controller / consumer model driver instead or rather simpler a
reg-mux node?
> + reg = <0x0 0xa40000 0x0 0x800>;
> + #pinctrl-cells = <1>;
> + pinctrl-single,register-width = <32>;
> + pinctrl-single,function-mask = <0x000107ff>;
> + status = "disabled";
> + };
> +
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D