[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3F9F2BA4-65FB-421F-A1BB-37F7CC59A519@goldelico.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:00:35 +0100
From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
Gražvydas Ignotas <notasas@...il.com>,
Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: omap5-board-common: enable rtc and charging of backup battery
Am 13.01.2016 um 18:38 schrieb Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>:
> On 01/13/2016 11:12 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 01/13/2016 06:48 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Care to dig up some more information on that?
>>
>> i can't find this report, sry - as i remember there was difference
>> between some OMAP4 HS and GP SoCs.
>>
>> But links on commits for old 3.4 kernel below:
>> http://omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=commitdiff;h=a7a516be9338eabc9a7682e7433fa34d86c1f208
>> http://omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=commitdiff;h=262669aebf4af4044a25e8292f0e27986e18445a
>>
>>>
>>> I don't have anything against adding GPIO handling to the TWL driver
>>> so it can be optionally specified. But that's clearly a separate patch
>>> and should be done by somebody who knows more about the issue and has
>>> a test case needing the GPIO logic for this pin.
>>>
>>
>>
> if it helps in anyways
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-May/170707.html
>> Yes, the TRM has some mode bits marked as reserved, but that doesn't
>> mean they don't work. It just means the documentation is squirreled
>> away in the secure TRM addendum.
Ok, now I understand why the "reserved" MUX_MODE1 could still be correct
for OMAP5. And that I just have a "squirreled away" version of the TRM which
made me wonder what is going on.
>From this discussion I read that for X15 there is a different PMIC
(Palmas derived, but not a twl6037) so that it needs something different.
So my proposal would be to keep the MUX_MODE1 (because it works
on OMAP5+TWL6037) as proposed by Tony. Maybe after adding a comment
that MUX_MODE1 is a weakly documented feature.
And the X15 board can "patch" it after using the omap5-board-common.dtsi
to whatever it needs to fix it.
BR,
Nikolaus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists