From: Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
devicetree-discuss list <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:17:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49024986.5030406@genesi-usa.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081024170128.GA20577@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:41:20PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> [...]
>>> Would we suggest a node;
>>>
>>> gpio-header {
>>> compatible = "bplan,efika-gpio";
>>> gpios = <&gpio-standard 16 0 17 0>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> gpio-header2 {
>>> compatible = "bplan,efika-gpio-wkup";
>>> gpios = <&gpio-wkup 18 0>;
>>> };
>> IMO this looks very reasonable. You properly describe the hardware:
>> physical device (header) and its resources.
>
> If there are actually two headers, that is. If you use two nodes
> just to specify which gpio is wkup, that is's a bit ugly... Why not
>
> gpio-header {
> compatible = "bplan,<board>-gpio-header";
> gpios = <&standard 16 0
> &standard 17 0
> &wakeup 18 0>;
> }
>
> And the driver whould know that on this particular <board>
> third gpio is the wakeup one?
Good point, I concede to your much better plan :D
Back to the other discussion, where we give individual GPIOs some
names so they are detectable and not just programmable as a bank,
do you have any ideas about that? :/
--
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matt Sealey <matt-sEEEE4iEDtaXzmuOJsdVMQ@public.gmane.org>
To: avorontsov-hkdhdckH98+B+jHODAdFcQ@public.gmane.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev list
<linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
devicetree-discuss list
<devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:17:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49024986.5030406@genesi-usa.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081024170128.GA20577-wnGakbxT3iijyJ0x5qLZdcN33GVbZNy3@public.gmane.org>
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:41:20PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> [...]
>>> Would we suggest a node;
>>>
>>> gpio-header {
>>> compatible = "bplan,efika-gpio";
>>> gpios = <&gpio-standard 16 0 17 0>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> gpio-header2 {
>>> compatible = "bplan,efika-gpio-wkup";
>>> gpios = <&gpio-wkup 18 0>;
>>> };
>> IMO this looks very reasonable. You properly describe the hardware:
>> physical device (header) and its resources.
>
> If there are actually two headers, that is. If you use two nodes
> just to specify which gpio is wkup, that is's a bit ugly... Why not
>
> gpio-header {
> compatible = "bplan,<board>-gpio-header";
> gpios = <&standard 16 0
> &standard 17 0
> &wakeup 18 0>;
> }
>
> And the driver whould know that on this particular <board>
> third gpio is the wakeup one?
Good point, I concede to your much better plan :D
Back to the other discussion, where we give individual GPIOs some
names so they are detectable and not just programmable as a bank,
do you have any ideas about that? :/
--
Matt Sealey <matt-sEEEE4iEDtaXzmuOJsdVMQ@public.gmane.org>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-24 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-23 21:32 GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree Matt Sealey
2008-10-23 21:32 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-23 22:22 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-23 23:05 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 0:52 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-24 3:29 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 3:29 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 4:17 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-24 4:17 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-24 4:45 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 4:45 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 22:14 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-26 23:47 ` David Gibson
2008-10-27 15:40 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 18:34 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 18:56 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 20:10 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 20:10 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 21:56 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 21:56 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 23:12 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 23:12 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 23:40 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 0:47 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 1:11 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 1:11 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 2:37 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 16:53 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 16:53 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 17:39 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 19:46 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 19:46 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 0:15 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:15 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:51 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 1:50 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 5:20 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 5:20 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-24 22:03 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 22:20 ` Stephen Neuendorffer
2008-10-24 22:20 ` Stephen Neuendorffer
2008-10-26 21:39 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 23:44 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-26 21:13 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-26 21:13 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-26 23:53 ` David Gibson
2008-10-27 16:12 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 16:12 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 16:35 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-27 16:35 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-27 17:05 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 17:25 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-27 17:49 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 17:54 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-28 0:38 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:38 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:34 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:34 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 4:58 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 3:27 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 3:27 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 16:41 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-24 17:01 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-24 22:17 ` Matt Sealey [this message]
2008-10-24 22:17 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 22:37 ` Anton Vorontsov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-10-28 13:31 Konstantinos Margaritis
2008-10-28 14:11 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 14:11 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 14:15 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 14:15 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 17:06 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 17:06 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 17:32 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 23:37 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 23:37 ` David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49024986.5030406@genesi-usa.com \
--to=matt@genesi-usa.com \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.