On 10/25/2017 12:36 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>
> Il 24/10/2017 07:51, Cédric Le Goater ha scritto:
>> On 10/17/2017 11:16 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2017 10:20 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Il 17/10/2017 10:18, Cédric Le Goater ha scritto:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2017 09:36 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm working on an iMX6 based board with a PCA9555 which is used both to
>>>>>>> drive LEDs and manage some GPIOs.
>>>>>> The PCA9555 chip and the PCA955[0-3] chips have different control
>>>>>> registers. You need a different led driver for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> My typo sorry, as you can see in the device tree below, I'm using pca9551
>>>>
>>>> ok.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to take a look at how we mixed gpios and leds on the
>>>> witherspoon
>>>> system using pca9552 chips. we added a gpio-leds binding.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/openbmc/linux/blob/dev-4.10/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-opp-witherspoon.dts
>>>
>>> understood: you configure all pins of PCA955x as GPIOs and the map the one
>>> you need as led with gpio-leds binding.
>>
>> Sorry I got distracted.
>>
>>> However to me this is a kind of workaround or, at least, there's nothing
>>> about this limitation into the devicetree binding (in fact, IMHO, the
>>> device tree binding example will just fail)
>>
>> euh ? what do you mean. There is a real system using this device tree.
>> I think we would know about it if it didn't work. Please explain
>>
>
> I mean that, for what I understand, your configuration is working because all
> pin of 9551 are configured as GPIOs (and the binded back as led)
> In my configuration I have some pins configured as led and some as GPIOs, and
> this is not working.
ok. That might the case.
We have declared all pins as GPIOs on pca0 then used on top :
gpio-keys-polled {
compatible = "gpio-keys-polled";
...
}
and
leds {
compatible = "gpio-leds";
...
}
which works perfecty fine.
>>> I wrote the attached patch which should fix the issue and allow a more
>>> generic approach. WDYT?
>>>
>>> (in case it looks good, I'll send the patch in the correct way)
>>
>> Please send the patch to discuss, add Andrew Jeffery <[email protected]>
>> in cc:
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay but I'm busy in Prague with OSSummit and ELCE.
> I 'll send a proper patch
> and more comments, if needed, by the begin of next week.
ok thanks, I have not seen anything wrong with it. I will see if we can
get it tested on our systems.
> (BTW, if some of you are here, drop me a line and have a beer together! ;-) )
Nah, not this time. Enjoy :)
Cheers,
C.
