From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:45:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] ARM: shmobile: BOCK-W: add VIN and ML86V7667 support Message-Id: <51CC25F2.9020605@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <201306220326.46176.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <201306220330.13845.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <8761x02khf.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <8761x02khf.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hello. On 27-06-2013 9:25, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: >> @@ -166,6 +187,16 @@ static const struct pinctrl_map bockw_pi >> "usb0", "usb0"), >> PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("ehci-platform", "pfc-r8a7778", >> "usb1", "usb1"), >> + /* VIN0 */ >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.0", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin0_clk", "vin0"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.0", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin0_data8", "vin0"), >> + /* VIN1 */ >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.1", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin1_clk", "vin1"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.1", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin1_data8", "vin1"), >> }; > Here, it includes VIN1 pin, but >> #define FPGA 0x18200000 >> @@ -184,6 +215,16 @@ static void __init bockw_init(void) >> r8a7778_add_hspi_device(0); >> r8a7778_add_mmc_device(&sh_mmcif_plat); >> r8a7778_add_usb_phy_device(&usb_phy_platform_data); >> + r8a7778_add_vin_device(0, &vin_platform_data); >> + /* VIN1 has a pin conflict with Ether */ >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SH_ETH)) >> + r8a7778_add_vin_device(1, &vin_platform_data); > what happen if SH_ETH was enabled here ? > r8a7778_add_vin_device(1, xxx) is not called, > but bockw_pinctrl_map was called with VIN1 setting ? Don't worry, it's all tested. If the VIN1 platform device is not registered, VIN1 pinmux settings won't be selected by the driver core. > Best regards > --- > Kuninori Morimoto WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:45:54 +0400 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/3] ARM: shmobile: BOCK-W: add VIN and ML86V7667 support In-Reply-To: <8761x02khf.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> References: <201306220326.46176.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <201306220330.13845.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <8761x02khf.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> Message-ID: <51CC25F2.9020605@cogentembedded.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 27-06-2013 9:25, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: >> @@ -166,6 +187,16 @@ static const struct pinctrl_map bockw_pi >> "usb0", "usb0"), >> PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("ehci-platform", "pfc-r8a7778", >> "usb1", "usb1"), >> + /* VIN0 */ >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.0", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin0_clk", "vin0"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.0", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin0_data8", "vin0"), >> + /* VIN1 */ >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.1", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin1_clk", "vin1"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7778-vin.1", "pfc-r8a7778", >> + "vin1_data8", "vin1"), >> }; > Here, it includes VIN1 pin, but >> #define FPGA 0x18200000 >> @@ -184,6 +215,16 @@ static void __init bockw_init(void) >> r8a7778_add_hspi_device(0); >> r8a7778_add_mmc_device(&sh_mmcif_plat); >> r8a7778_add_usb_phy_device(&usb_phy_platform_data); >> + r8a7778_add_vin_device(0, &vin_platform_data); >> + /* VIN1 has a pin conflict with Ether */ >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SH_ETH)) >> + r8a7778_add_vin_device(1, &vin_platform_data); > what happen if SH_ETH was enabled here ? > r8a7778_add_vin_device(1, xxx) is not called, > but bockw_pinctrl_map was called with VIN1 setting ? Don't worry, it's all tested. If the VIN1 platform device is not registered, VIN1 pinmux settings won't be selected by the driver core. > Best regards > --- > Kuninori Morimoto WBR, Sergei