[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200921095912.GA3752675@x1>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:59:12 +0200
From: Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>,
Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...il.com>,
Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...il.com>,
Christina Quast <cquast@...overdisplays.com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: am335x: guardian: switch to AM33XX_PADCONF
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 09:47:07AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org> [200919 19:53]:
> > Change the pin defintions from AM33XX_IOPAD to AM33XX_PADCONF macro so
> > that it correctly handles changes to #pinctrl-cells.
>
> Thanks for fixing this. I wonder if we should now also change the define
> for the old AM33XX_IOPAD macro?
>
> Or just remove it completely and mention that we've changed nr-pinctrl-cells
> to use 3 now?
>
> Otherwise the unknown number of out-of-tree boards will be hitting this
> too.
>
Christina Quast commented in f1ff9be7652b ("ARM: dts: am33xx: Added
AM33XX_PADCONF macro") that AM33XX_IOPAD() was left in place to avoid
breaking boards not in mainline.
If we follow that logic, then I think that fixing AM33XX_IOPAD() for
#pinctrl-cells = <2> would be the correct solution.
Would this be acceptable?
#define AM33XX_IOPAD(pa, val) OMAP_IOPAD_OFFSET((pa), 0x0800) (val) (0)
thanks,
drew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists