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 <and...@aj.id.au> >> 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.