On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 06:01:58AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> 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.With arch/arm/dts/exynos4210-pinctrl.dtsi + arch/arm/dts/exynos4210.dtsi the modification to the later is just to include the former, right? I'm OK with that. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
