[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170428052208.GF18349@verge.net.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:22:09 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@...esas.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/10] arm: dts: genmai: Add ethernet pin group
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0000, Chris Brandt wrote:
> Hi Geert,
>
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > +ðer {
> > > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > + pinctrl-0 = <ðer_pins>;
> > > +
> > > + status = "okay";
> > > +
> > > + renesas,no-ether-link;
> > > + phy-handle = <&phy0>;
> > > + phy0: ethernet-phy@0 {
> > > + reg = <0>;
> >
> > Shouldn't the interrupt (connected to P1_15) be described?
>
>
> That interrupt pin from the PHY is not used. It did not need to be connected.
So things are fine as above or should I expect to see v6?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists