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