On 06/02/2015 05:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
On 05/25/2015 08:53 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
Specify how the GPIOs map to the pins in T124, so the dependency is
explicit.
Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
index 13cc7ca..5d1d35f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@
gpio-controller;
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
interrupt-controller;
+ gpio-ranges = <&pinmux 0 0 250>;
We should be consistent between SoCs. Why not make the same change for all
Tegra SoCs?
Agreed.
I think this change will cause the GPIO subsystem to call into the pinctrl
subsystem and create/add/register a new GPIO<->pinctrl range structure. The
pinctrl driver already does this, so I think we'll end up with two duplicate
entries in the pinctrl device's gpio_ranges list. This probably won't cause
a problem, but I wanted to make sure you'd thought about it to make sure.
That sounds like duplication indeed, I would expect that first a patch
adds the ranges to the dts[i] files and then a second patch delete the
same ranges from the pinctrl driver then, if these shall come in from
the device tree.
We can't delete the gpio-range-registration code from the Tegra pinmux
driver, or old DTs won't work correctly. We could make it conditional
based upon whether the DT contains the property or not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
