David Lechner <da...@lechnology.com> writes:
> On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown
>>> bias on groups of pins.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <da...@lechnology.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@
>>> };
>>>
>>> };
>>> + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c {
>>> + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd";
>>> + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>;
>>> + status = "disabled";
>>> + };
>>
>> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the
>> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today,
>> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up.
>
> I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here
> is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart
> are together, etc.)
>
> Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this
> cleaned up be acceptable?
No thanks. That kind of thing is the needless churn that gets us flamed.
Kevin
