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