Hi Tom, On 30 July 2014 09:34, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 28 July 2014 21:27, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 06:11:32AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> >>> The pinctrl bindings used by Linux are an incomplete description of the >>> hardware. It is possible in most cases to determine the register address >>> of each, but not in all cases. By adding an additional property we can >>> fix this, and avoid adding a table to U-Boot for every single Exynos >>> SOC. >> >> So here's my fear.. >> >> [snip] >>> @@ -49,7 +57,7 @@ >>> i2c@12ca0000 { >>> #address-cells = <1>; >>> #size-cells = <0>; >>> - compatible = "samsung,s3c2440-i27c"; >>> + compatible = "samsung,s3c2440-i2c"; >>> reg = <0x12CA0000 0x100>; >>> interrupts = <0 60 0>; >>> }; >> >> Except for the above (what's going on? pulling in a typo fix from >> upstream?) they're legal "regular" non-U-Boot-prefixed changes. Are >> they going back into the master copy in Linux? > > Oops I missed this email. The typo is just my mistake - we don't need > this change and the typo is in the previous patch. > >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi >>> b/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi >>> index b3e63d1..df31f37 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi >>> @@ -13,6 +13,18 @@ >>> */ >>> >>> / { >>> + /* Replicate the ordering of arch/arm/include/asm/arch-exynos/gpio.h >>> */ >>> + pinctrl@14010000 { >>> + }; >>> + pinctrl@13400000 { >>> + }; >>> + pinctrl@13410000 { >>> + }; >>> + pinctrl@14000000 { >>> + }; >>> + pinctrl@03860000 { >>> + }; >> >> So this isn't going to head back to Linux, clearly... >> >> Is there some way we can contain our changes under includes perhaps? > > I hope that this one could go away, since the order of GPIOs doesn't > ultimately matter. At present we assume a particular order due to the > numbering of GPIOs. But once we move to named GPIOs in the device tree > we can drop this ordering patch. > > In general, yes we could create a new include file for the U-Boot > device tree additions.
Update: I took a look at the includes. I can create a new file, like arch/arm/dts/exynos4210-pinctrl.dtsi which I include from arch/arm/dts/exynos4210.dtsi. But I think I will still need to modify arch/arm/dts/exynos4210.dtsi. The alternative is to put the changes in something like exynos4210-u-boot.dtsi and include those in every board file that uses that include. This needs to be done for each of the 4/5 SoCs. > > We might be able to send these up to the kernel as they are pretty > harmless and do describe the hardware. Perhaps the kernel people will > push back on the basis that they are unnecessary for the kernel. I'm > not sure. What do you think? The good news is that I think my changes fit within the binding definition so they may be accepted eventually. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot