[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <556DCE71.7050108@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 09:40:33 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stéphane Marchesin
<stephane.marchesin@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] ARM: tegra: Add gpio-ranges property
On 06/02/2015 05:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2015 08:53 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>>
>>> Specify how the GPIOs map to the pins in T124, so the dependency is
>>> explicit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> index 13cc7ca..5d1d35f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> @@ -254,6 +254,7 @@
>>> gpio-controller;
>>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>> interrupt-controller;
>>> + gpio-ranges = <&pinmux 0 0 250>;
>>
>>
>> We should be consistent between SoCs. Why not make the same change for all
>> Tegra SoCs?
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I think this change will cause the GPIO subsystem to call into the pinctrl
>> subsystem and create/add/register a new GPIO<->pinctrl range structure. The
>> pinctrl driver already does this, so I think we'll end up with two duplicate
>> entries in the pinctrl device's gpio_ranges list. This probably won't cause
>> a problem, but I wanted to make sure you'd thought about it to make sure.
>
> That sounds like duplication indeed, I would expect that first a patch
> adds the ranges to the dts[i] files and then a second patch delete the
> same ranges from the pinctrl driver then, if these shall come in from
> the device tree.
We can't delete the gpio-range-registration code from the Tegra pinmux
driver, or old DTs won't work correctly. We could make it conditional
based upon whether the DT contains the property or not.
--
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