Merge tag 'pinctrl-v7.3-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrlgrafted

Pull pin control updates from Linus Walleij:
 "Core changes:

   - Use the non-blocking mux_state_try_select() in the generic MUX pin
     control back-end

   - Free pin maps on pinctrl_generic_to_map() failure in the core
     helpers

  New hardware pin control:

   - Qualcomm Maili TLMM SoC, PMG1110 PMIC, and Eliza LPASS LPI TLMM SoC
     (this is for the low power audio, LPASS = Low Power Audio SubSystem
     portions)

   - Upboard support on top of the Intel pin controller

   - Apple T6030 and T6031 support (just compatible strings)

   - Samsung Exynos 8855 SoC

   - Mediatek MT6858 SoC

   - Rockchip RK3308B and RV1106 SoCs

   - Airoha EN7523 and AN7563 SoCs

  Improvements:

   - Qualcomm TLMM GPIOs are unconditionally marked as wakeup capable

   - Qualcomm improvements on top of the Qualcomm PDC (power domain
     controller) irqchip improvements from tglx:s tree

   - Qualcomm IPQ806x and IPQ9650 non-urgent pin grop fixups

   - The NPCM8xx driver has been put into shape fixing many pin and
     group definitions

   - Some non-urgent Tegra 264 pin assignments are fixed up

   - Some non-urgent fixups to Airoha AN7581 and AN7583 registers and
     pin assignments, missing features etc"

* tag 'pinctrl-v7.3-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl: (130 commits)
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: Convert TI DA850 pupd to DT schema
  pinctrl: meson: sync some modify from A4
  pinctrl: meson: a4: Add input enable pin configuration
  pinctrl: realtek: rtd1625: remove unused group name spdif_sel
  pinctrl: realtek: rtd1625: fix base_bit for VE4 GPIO 13
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: microchip,pic32mzda-pinctrl: Convert to DT schema
  Revert "Merge branch 'ib-rsk7204' into devel"
  pinctrl: rockchip: Add RV1106 pinctrl support
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: rockchip: Add RV1106 compatible
  pinctrl: rockchip: Decode drive strength in the get function
  pinctrl: fix PINCTRL_GENERIC_MUX not always being selectable
  pinctrl: airoha: add support of an7563 SoC
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: airoha: add support of an7563 pin controller
  pinctrl: airoha: try to find chip scu node by phandle first
  pinctrl: airoha: add support of en7523 SoC
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: airoha: add support of en7523 pin controller
  pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add support for olt pinmux
  pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add support for pon_alt pinmux
  pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add support for npu_uart pinmux
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add missed features
  ...

1 files changed, 201 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/slave-interface.rst b/Documentation/i2c/slave-interface.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..3f0d320bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/slave-interface.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+=====================================
+Linux I2C slave interface description
+=====================================
+
+by Wolfram Sang <wsa@sang-engineering.com> in 2014-15
+
+Linux can also be an I2C slave if the I2C controller in use has slave
+functionality. For that to work, one needs slave support in the bus driver plus
+a hardware independent software backend providing the actual functionality. An
+example for the latter is the slave-eeprom driver, which acts as a dual memory
+driver. While another I2C master on the bus can access it like a regular
+EEPROM, the Linux I2C slave can access the content via sysfs and handle data as
+needed. The backend driver and the I2C bus driver communicate via events. Here
+is a small graph visualizing the data flow and the means by which data is
+transported. The dotted line marks only one example. The backend could also
+use a character device, be in-kernel only, or something completely different::
+
+
+              e.g. sysfs        I2C slave events        I/O registers
+  +-----------+   v    +---------+     v     +--------+  v  +------------+
+  | Userspace +........+ Backend +-----------+ Driver +-----+ Controller |
+  +-----------+        +---------+           +--------+     +------------+
+                                                                | |
+  ----------------------------------------------------------------+--  I2C
+  --------------------------------------------------------------+----  Bus
+
+Note: Technically, there is also the I2C core between the backend and the
+driver. However, at this time of writing, the layer is transparent.
+
+
+User manual
+===========
+
+I2C slave backends behave like standard I2C clients. So, you can instantiate
+them as described in the document instantiating-devices.rst. The only
+difference is that i2c slave backends have their own address space. So, you
+have to add 0x1000 to the address you would originally request. An example for
+instantiating the slave-eeprom driver from userspace at the 7 bit address 0x64
+on bus 1::
+
+  # echo slave-24c02 0x1064 > /sys/bus/i2c/devices/i2c-1/new_device
+
+Each backend should come with separate documentation to describe its specific
+behaviour and setup.
+
+
+Developer manual
+================
+
+First, the events which are used by the bus driver and the backend will be
+described in detail. After that, some implementation hints for extending bus
+drivers and writing backends will be given.
+
+
+I2C slave events
+----------------
+
+The bus driver sends an event to the backend using the following function::
+
+	ret = i2c_slave_event(client, event, &val)
+
+'client' describes the I2C slave device. 'event' is one of the special event
+types described hereafter. 'val' holds an u8 value for the data byte to be
+read/written and is thus bidirectional. The pointer to val must always be
+provided even if val is not used for an event, i.e. don't use NULL here. 'ret'
+is the return value from the backend. Mandatory events must be provided by the
+bus drivers and must be checked for by backend drivers.
+
+Event types:
+
+* I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED (mandatory)
+
+  'val': unused
+
+  'ret': 0 if the backend is ready, otherwise some errno
+
+Another I2C master wants to write data to us. This event should be sent once
+our own address and the write bit was detected. The data did not arrive yet, so
+there is nothing to process or return. After returning, the bus driver must
+always ack the address phase. If 'ret' is zero, backend initialization or
+wakeup is done and further data may be received. If 'ret' is an errno, the bus
+driver should nack all incoming bytes until the next stop condition to enforce
+a retry of the transmission.
+
+* I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED (mandatory)
+
+  'val': backend returns first byte to be sent
+
+  'ret': always 0
+
+Another I2C master wants to read data from us. This event should be sent once
+our own address and the read bit was detected. After returning, the bus driver
+should transmit the first byte.
+
+* I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED (mandatory)
+
+  'val': bus driver delivers received byte
+
+  'ret': 0 if the byte should be acked, some errno if the byte should be nacked
+
+Another I2C master has sent a byte to us which needs to be set in 'val'. If 'ret'
+is zero, the bus driver should ack this byte. If 'ret' is an errno, then the byte
+should be nacked.
+
+* I2C_SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED (mandatory)
+
+  'val': backend returns next byte to be sent
+
+  'ret': always 0
+
+The bus driver requests the next byte to be sent to another I2C master in
+'val'. Important: This does not mean that the previous byte has been acked, it
+only means that the previous byte is shifted out to the bus! To ensure seamless
+transmission, most hardware requests the next byte when the previous one is
+still shifted out. If the master sends NACK and stops reading after the byte
+currently shifted out, this byte requested here is never used. It very likely
+needs to be sent again on the next I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUEST, depending a bit on
+your backend, though.
+
+* I2C_SLAVE_STOP (mandatory)
+
+  'val': unused
+
+  'ret': always 0
+
+A stop condition was received. This can happen anytime and the backend should
+reset its state machine for I2C transfers to be able to receive new requests.
+
+
+Software backends
+-----------------
+
+If you want to write a software backend:
+
+* use a standard i2c_driver and its matching mechanisms
+* write the slave_callback which handles the above slave events
+  (best using a state machine)
+* register this callback via i2c_slave_register()
+
+Check the i2c-slave-eeprom driver as an example.
+
+
+Bus driver support
+------------------
+
+If you want to add slave support to the bus driver:
+
+* implement calls to register/unregister the slave and add those to the
+  struct i2c_algorithm. When registering, you probably need to set the I2C
+  slave address and enable slave specific interrupts. If you use runtime pm, you
+  should use pm_runtime_get_sync() because your device usually needs to be
+  powered on always to be able to detect its slave address. When unregistering,
+  do the inverse of the above.
+
+* Catch the slave interrupts and send appropriate i2c_slave_events to the backend.
+
+Note that most hardware supports being master _and_ slave on the same bus. So,
+if you extend a bus driver, please make sure that the driver supports that as
+well. In almost all cases, slave support does not need to disable the master
+functionality.
+
+Check the i2c-rcar driver as an example.
+
+
+About ACK/NACK
+--------------
+
+It is good behaviour to always ACK the address phase, so the master knows if a
+device is basically present or if it mysteriously disappeared. Using NACK to
+state being busy is troublesome. SMBus demands to always ACK the address phase,
+while the I2C specification is more loose on that. Most I2C controllers also
+automatically ACK when detecting their slave addresses, so there is no option
+to NACK them. For those reasons, this API does not support NACK in the address
+phase.
+
+Currently, there is no slave event to report if the master did ACK or NACK a
+byte when it reads from us. We could make this an optional event if the need
+arises. However, cases should be extremely rare because the master is expected
+to send STOP after that and we have an event for that. Also, keep in mind not
+all I2C controllers have the possibility to report that event.
+
+
+About buffers
+-------------
+
+During development of this API, the question of using buffers instead of just
+bytes came up. Such an extension might be possible, usefulness is unclear at
+this time of writing. Some points to keep in mind when using buffers:
+
+* Buffers should be opt-in and backend drivers will always have to support
+  byte-based transactions as the ultimate fallback anyhow because this is how
+  the majority of HW works.
+
+* For backends simulating hardware registers, buffers are largely not helpful
+  because after each byte written an action should be immediately triggered.
+  For reads, the data kept in the buffer might get stale if the backend just
+  updated a register because of internal processing.
+
+* A master can send STOP at any time. For partially transferred buffers, this
+  means additional code to handle this exception. Such code tends to be
+  error-prone.