[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9945772.cPNxB9AH25@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:11:08 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] gpio: Cygnus: define Broadcom Cygnus GPIO binding
On Monday 08 December 2014 08:55:20 Ray Jui wrote:
>
> On 12/8/2014 3:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 December 2014 18:38:32 Ray Jui wrote:
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +
> >> +- compatible:
> >> + Currently supported Cygnus GPIO controllers include:
> >> + "brcm,cygnus-ccm-gpio": ChipcommonG GPIO controller
> >> + "brcm,cygnus-asiu-gpio": ASIU GPIO controller
> >> + "brcm,cygnus-crmu-gpio": CRMU GPIO controller
> >
> > How different are these? If they are almost the same, would it
> > be better to use the same compatible string for all of them and
> > describe the differences in extra properties?
> >
> > If they are rather different, maybe you should have a separate
> > binding and driver for each?
> >
> > Arnd
> >
> They are quite similar with the following minor differences:
> 1) ChipcommonG GPIO controller uses a separate register block
> (0x0301d164) to control drive stregnth
> 2) Cannot control drive strength for the CMRU GPIO
This can be deducted from having one or two register blocks I
assume.
> 3) CRMU GPIO controller's interrupt is not connected to GIC of A9.
> Currently that's taken care of by using a "no-interrupt" device tree
> property
No need for this property even, just see if there is an "interrupts"
property or not.
> I can change to use the common compatible string "brcm,cygnus-gpio".
> With an introduction of property "no-drv-stregnth" which should be set
> for CRMU GPIO controller.
Ok.
> For ChipcommonG GPIO, it will have a second
> register block defined, so we'll know to use that second register block
> for drive strength configuration. For the rest, we assume normal drive
> strength configuration (i.e., ASIU in our case).
Maybe see if something older than cygnus was already using a compatible
gpio controller and then use the name of that.
> Looking at this again, it looks like the "no-interrupt" property is
> really redundant. For GPIO controller without interrupt connected to A9,
> we can simply leave its interrupt properties not defined. I'll get rid
> of it along with the above changes.
Right.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists