lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/3] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add qualcomm-bluetooth
On Tue 27 Mar 08:56 PDT 2018, Thierry Escande wrote:

> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 27/03/2018 00:51, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue 20 Mar 23:58 HKT 2018, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@linaro.org>
> > [..]
> > > > + - clocks: clock phandle for SUSCLK_32KHZ
> > >
> > > if I compare this with broadcom-bluetooth.txt or ti-bluetooth.txt then
> > > besides compatible, everything else is optional. The
> > > nokia-bluetooth.txt has everything required, but that is also a really
> > > specific platform.
> > >
> > > Can we be less restrictive for a QCA general purpose chip?
> > >
> >
> > The way we deal with this in other bindings is that we tie such
> > requirements to the compatible; i.e. we would say that qcom,qca6174-bt
> > requires a clock and we would have something like qcom,qca-bt that makes
> > it optional.
> >
> > The beauty of this is that the driver will tell you if you forgot to
> > specify the clock when it actually is required, which saves you
> > considerable amount of debugging time.
> >
> >
> > NB. The way the bcm driver handles this is insufficient, as it treats
> > any error from clk_get as "there's no clock specified". The driver
> > should accept a clock not being specified, but should fail properly when
> > a clock is specified but can't be acquired (e.g. due to clk_get()
> > returning EPROBE_DEFER).
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +Example:
> > > > +
> > > > +serial@7570000 {
> > > > + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
> > > > + pinctrl-0 = <&blsp1_uart1_default>;
> > > > + pinctrl-1 = <&blsp1_uart1_sleep>;
> > > > +
> > > > + bluetooth {
> > > > + compatible = "qcom,qca6174-bt";
> > > > +
> > > > + enable-gpios = <&pm8994_gpios 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > > > +
> > > > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > > + pinctrl-0 = <&bt_en_pin_a>;
> > >
> > > This one I do not understand and you might want to shed some light
> > > into why this is done that way.
> > >
> >
> > This is completely generic and only relates to getting the electrical
> > properties of the gpio pin set up correctly. So I would recommend that
> > we omit this from the binding and example (including the pinctrl
> > properties for the serial above).
>
> If I remove the pinctrl entry in the bluetooth node, the gpio19 is then
> marked as unclaimed. The drive strength also defaults to low but that
> doesn't seem to be an issue and the the chip can still be enabled through
> gpio19. Is it ok to have it unclaimed? If so I can remove it from the
> binding and the doc then.
>
> Regarding the blsp1_uart1_default of the serial node, I can still enable the
> chip if I remove it but the hci commands all end in timeout. It seems that
> the function for these pins has to be explicitly set to blsp_uart2. So at
> least, the default pinctrl seems mandatory.
>

Our board needs these properties to get the uart and gpio in the right
state, but this is unrelated to BT - that's why I suggested that you
omit these properties from the BT binding.

Regards,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-27 20:48    [W:0.051 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site