[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbfNPWKDU5zDaKT0kvJhCpL3X=jvTpLpicm1yMD5brA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:45:27 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>
Cc: SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add bindings for mscc,ocelot-sgpio
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:05 AM Lars Povlsen
<lars.povlsen@...rochip.com> wrote:
> The only issue is that the gpios on the same "port" have restrictions on
> their status - they can only be enabled "all" or "none" for gpios that
> map to the same port. F.ex. gpio0, gpio32, gpio64 and gpio96 must all be
> enabled or disabled because at the hardware level you control the
> _port_.
This is fairly common. For example that an entire port/block share
a clock.
> But as I noted earlier, that could just be the driver enforcing
> this.
Yeps.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists