On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:25:03AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 1:51 PM Stafford Horne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 11:07:17AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 9:41 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is the rationale behind using brcm,bcm6345-gpio? > > > > > > Given brcm,bcm6345-gpio has 32-bit registers, while opencores,gpio > > > > > > has 8-bit registers, I doubt the latter is compatible with the > > > > > > former... > > > > > > Yeah this needs to be fixed/reverted pronto :/ > > > > > > > > I switch the size from 32-bit to 8-bit using the reg = <* 0x1>, <* > > > > > 0x1> setting. > > > > > Also the reg addresses of "dat" and "dirout" are different for the > > > > > real > > > > > brcm,bcm6345-gpio. > > > > > > > > > > brcm,bcm6345-gpio. Example: > > > > > > > > > > /* GPIOs 192 .. 223 */ > > > > > gpio6: gpio@518 { > > > > > compatible = "brcm,bcm6345-gpio"; > > > > > reg = <0x518 0x04>, <0x538 0x04>; > > > > > reg-names = "dirout", "dat"; > > > > > gpio-controller; > > > > > #gpio-cells = <2>; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > vs opencores,gpio Example: > > > > > > > > > > gpio0: gpio@91000000 { > > > > > compatible = "opencores,gpio", "brcm,bcm6345-gpio"; > > > > > reg = <0x91000000 0x1>, <0x91000001 0x1>; > > > > > reg-names = "dat", "dirout"; > > > > > gpio-controller; > > > > > #gpio-cells = <2>; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > Exactly, the register space and register widths are different > > > > > > ...as proved here. > > > > > > Stafford can you send a fixup or revert patch? > > > (Only need to revert if you can't make a fix quick enough, which I > > > think you can.) > > > > Sure, I'll send a fixup to the devicetree binding and a update to the > > driver to > > just support opencores,gpio. > > > > I assume, the v3 you sent is *not* it and you will send a v4 with > issues pointed out by Krzysztof fixes?
Yes, I have just sent out the v4. > > Hopefully, that can be picked up in time by Bartosz who has this one staged > > in > > gpio/for-next. > > > > I'm ready to pick it up as soon as Krzysztof Acks it. OK. > > I'll send the 2 patches as part of my series for OpenRISC multicore fixups > > as > > the devicetree's I have added have a soft dependency the patches. After/if > > the > > patches are pulled to the gpio branch I can drop them from my queue and I'll > > just have to make sure Linux merged the GPIO changes binding updates before > > the > > OpenRISC updates during the merge window. Let me know if there are any > > issues. > > > > Sounds good. Thank you. -Stafford > > > > > The opencores,gpio setup does work. > > > > > > > > > > Now that I think about it, would it have been better to just add > > > > > opencores,gpio > > > > > to gpio-mmio.c compatible list? > > > > > > > > I think that would be better. > > > > > > Yes this is better. > > > > > > I should have seen this, I guess I was sloppy :( > > > > I should have also thought more, but I don't do this often enough to > > remember > > all of the rules. Sorry for the head ache. > > > > -Stafford
