On 01/29/2013 02:57 PM, Tom Warren wrote: > Stephen, > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >> On 01/29/2013 01:40 PM, Tom Warren wrote: >>> Stephen, >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On 01/29/2013 12:19 PM, Tom Warren wrote: >>>>> Note that T114 does not have a separate/different DVC (power I2C) >>>>> controller like T20 - all 5 I2C controllers are identical, but >>>>> I2C5 is used to designate the controller intended for power >>>>> control (PWR_I2C in the schematics).
>>>>> + reg = <0x7000c000 0x100>; >>>> >>>> The interrupts property is missing here. >>> >>> I didn't have an interrupts property for I2C on the T30 dts files, >>> either. >> >> That sounds like a bug in the DT. >> >>> What is it used for in U-Boot? >> >> U-Boot doesn't use interrupts at least on Tegra, so it's not used. >> However, it'd be best to keep the U-Boot DT in line with the kernel DT >> so we can easily spot differences. There has been talk of trying to use >> the same DT for both too, although we're a long long way off from that. > > I'll add it, but it seems silly to add unused values, especially when > your past review critiques of DT files have asked for minimum > functionality, which I agree with. I meant to mention here that my previous comments were about unused nodes; it doesn't seem useful to add a bunch of nodes that we aren't using, until the drivers are ready and we actually end up using those nodes. However, when a node is added, we should fill it in fully, so the DT conforms to the binding for that node. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot