On Wednesday 17 April 2013 12:14 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/16/2013 08:31 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Add of_device_id table for Palma GPIO to be enable the
driver from DT file.
The driver can be registered from DT file as:
palmas: tps65913@58 {
:::::::::::
palmas_gpio: palmas_gpio {
compatible = "ti,palmas-gpio";
gpio-controller;
#gpio-cells = <2>;
};
};
So I think this patch looks fine if everyone is agreed that all the
Palmas sub-modules are represented as explicit child nodes in DT, and
the probing of the child nodes is based on the top-level Palmas device
being a bus, and enumerating its children in standard DT style, using
compatible values. (I'm not sure how the child probing/instantiation
will work for non-DT systems though).
I'm not 100% sure if an agreement on the top-level structure of the
Palmas DT bindings was reached though? Can the SlimLogic people confirm
this? I assume Laxman must be OK with it since he's sending this patch?
I am fine with this dt approach.
Similar patch on palma-rtc was acked by Grant.
If Slimlogic/TI team can finalise the DT binding then it will be easy
for me to push some more patches to have full support for palma driver
on our Tegra platform.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
