On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> xlnx,is-dual is always present in the HW and in all DTSes and it
> is generated for several years
>
> Based on my experience with hardware guys what happen when they add
> new channel is that they will use xlnx,is-dual = 2 for 3 channels,
> x
On 06/20/2013 01:33 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 06/20/2013 11:23 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>>> What about something like this:
>>>
>>> static bool is_dual (struct device_node *np)
>>> {
>>> struct property *prop = of_find_property(np
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 06/20/2013 11:23 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> What about something like this:
>>
>> static bool is_dual (struct device_node *np)
>> {
>> struct property *prop = of_find_property(np, "xlnx,is-dual", NULL);
>> int ret;
>> u32 val
On 06/20/2013 11:23 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 06/17/2013 07:29 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>>> I think of_property_read_bool() will accept
>>> xlnx,is-dual = <1>; to mean the same as xlnx,is-dual;
>>> try it.
>>
>> First of all sorry for
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 07:29 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> I think of_property_read_bool() will accept
>> xlnx,is-dual = <1>; to mean the same as xlnx,is-dual;
>> try it.
>
> First of all sorry for delay.
> You are right that of_property_read_bool()
> a
On 06/17/2013 07:29 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 05/31/2013 09:14 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>>> It's OK, but fix the boolean member so as to just needing to
>>> be present:
>>>
>>> xlnx,is-dual;
>>>
>>> Rather than
>>>
>>> xlnx,is-dual = <
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 05/31/2013 09:14 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> It's OK, but fix the boolean member so as to just needing to
>> be present:
>>
>> xlnx,is-dual;
>>
>> Rather than
>>
>> xlnx,is-dual = <1>;
>
> Surely I can do it but it means to change our BSP
On 05/31/2013 09:14 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 05/30/2013 09:46 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>>> (...)
+/* Read/Write access to the GPIO registers */
+#define xgpio_readreg(offset) __raw_readl(offset)
+#define xgpio_
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 05/30/2013 09:46 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> (...)
>>> +/* Read/Write access to the GPIO registers */
>>> +#define xgpio_readreg(offset) __raw_readl(offset)
>>> +#define xgpio_writereg(offset, val)__raw_writel(val, offset)
>>
Hi Linus,
On 05/30/2013 09:46 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
>
>> Supporting the second channel in the driver.
>> Offset is 0x8 and both channnels share the same
>> IRQ.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek
>
> (...)
>> +/* Read/Write access to the
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> Supporting the second channel in the driver.
> Offset is 0x8 and both channnels share the same
> IRQ.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek
(...)
> +/* Read/Write access to the GPIO registers */
> +#define xgpio_readreg(offset) __raw_rea
Supporting the second channel in the driver.
Offset is 0x8 and both channnels share the same
IRQ.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c | 93 --
1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-xili
12 matches
Mail list logo
