On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 05:35:25 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 10 August 2015 at 09:01, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:37:54 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Marek, > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > On 7 August 2015 at 14:35, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 07, 2015 at 09:13:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > >> Hi Marek, > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > >> On 5 August 2015 at 19:49, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > > >> > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 at 04:39:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > >> >> Hi Marek, > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > >> >> It's up to you. Normally each bank has a name and the datasheet > > > >> >> specifies it. In your case if not you could think about a naming > > > >> >> scheme. > > > >> > > > > >> > Can you please take a look into arch/arm/dts/socfpga.dtsi ? > > > >> > The system has three GPIO controllers (look for gpio0, gpio1, > > > >> > gpio2) and each of these controllers has one bank (porta, portb, > > > >> > portc) . > > > >> > > > > >> > I can name my gpios portxN , where x is either of a,b,c and N is > > > >> > the GPIO number. The problem is, I cannot determine in > > > >> > dwapb_gpio_bind() which one is "porta", "portb" and "portc" > > > >> > because all I have is the physical addess of the GPIO controller > > > >> > and the index of the bank in the namespace of that controller. > > > >> > > > > >> > Sure, I can do some sort of global counting in the driver, but I > > > >> > would like to avoid that sort of thing. I can also add some kind > > > >> > of ad-hoc DT prop, but that's also not a good idea I think. Do > > > >> > you have any suggestion for me please ? > > > >> > > > >> One option is to use the device tree node name but it isn't very > > > >> friendly - gpio0@xxxxx. > > > > > > > > That's what I do now pretty much. > > > > > > > >> You could perhaps add a new property like 'bank-name'? > > > > > > > > Do we want to add ad-hoc DT nodes which are > > > > a) Not describing hardware > > > > b) Not part of the official DT bindings for that platform > > > > ? > > > > > > > > Is that really a way to go ? > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > It needs to be part of the official binding. Naming the hardware is > > > part of the hardware definition - see for example the regulator-name > > > property for regulators. > > > > So what do you think about introducing a 'bank-name' property then ? > > I think this might work just fine ? > > I think it's OK - just make sure you send the GPIO binding change to Linux > too. > > > > Another option is to use an alias: > > > > > > aliases { > > > > > > gpio0 = &gpio_0; > > > gpio1 = &gpio_1; > > > gpio2 = &gpio_2; > > > > > > } > > > > > > Then you can turn gpio0 into bank A, gpio1 into bank B, etc. > > > > Is there a function which maps the udevice->dev->of_offset into an > > alias's seq ID ? > > dev->seq, once it is probed. Until it is probed it doesn't have a > sequence number (by definition). > > You can use fdtdec_get_alias_seq() but I don't recommend it. We're > trying to drop fdtdec eventually.
OK. I sent a V2, so that should be OK now. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot