Hi Tom,
On 4 August 2014 09:54, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote:
> 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.
Almost, but we still need the #address-cells and #size-cells
properties in the pinctrl nodes.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
