Hi Jon, On 11 June 2014 08:33, Jon Loeliger <loeli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi Jon, >> >> I thought I should mention that I spent time on a flight to look at >> SPI with driver model. I have put the WIP code in branch 'working' in >> u-boot-dm.git. Note it doesn't work, and is very early. Also note that >> many of the patches have not been posted - I just want to make it >> clear what I am up to. > > Awesome! > >> In doing this I had to sort out the numbering of devices. U-Boot has >> the concept of SPI bus 2 on its command line, and for now at lest we >> need to keep that working. So I have added sequence numbers to devices >> - so a device can be considered 'child number 3' of its parent, for >> example. The numbers don't need to be sequential. I suppose we could >> generalise this to GPIOs if it works out. > > And I think I am saying that we already *have* it generalized for > the GPIOs but only if we remove that renumbering function! > > Consider again that the U_CLASS lookup of a GPIO simply matches > versus the range in each uclass data (gpio base and count). That search > doesn't care about their order within the UCLASS_GPIO list. > > (Never mind that the renumbering breaks the association of the device > base register and pin ranges as set up by the bind/probe code!)
I wonder if we could do something similar then, where there is a default numbering if none is provided, but the GPIO devices are able to 'request' particular number ranges? > >> My approach for scanning the SPI bus in the device tree is similar to >> what I suggested a week or so ago - I took the code from dm_scan_fdt() >> and put it in a function with a udevice parent and node parameters. It >> seems to work OK for this simple case. > > Nice! > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
