[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <800a68a4-d6ce-212b-5849-56c9d32f891a@st.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:31:01 +0200
From: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] includes: dt-bindings: Rename STM32F429 pinctrl DT
bindings
Hi Rob,
On 04/10/2017 10:27 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 02:43:00PM +0200, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>> STM32F4 MCU series is composed of several SOC (STM32F429, STM32F469, ...).
>> Most of muxing definition are identical. So to avoid to duplicate bindings
>> definition, this patch create common definitions.
>
> This is a lot of churn. Some confirmation that the resultant dtb is the
> same before and after would be nice. Perhaps the script you used to
> convert this as well.
I tried to use fdtdump but it seems bugged. So I used directly dtc
binary to (re)generate dts files (before and after apply the series) and
I compared "pinmux" field in both case.
Example on stm32f469-disco:
./scripts/dtc/dtc -I dtb -O dts -o stm32f469-disco-after.dts
stm32f469-disco-after.dtb
./scripts/dtc/dtc -I dtb -O dts -o stm32f469-disco-before.dts
stm32f469-disco-before.dtb
cat stm32f469-disco-after.dts | grep pinmux
cat stm32f469-disco-before.dts | grep pinmux
regards
alex
>
> Rob
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists