From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:20:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/23] ARM: dts: omap5-uevm.dts: add tca6424a Message-Id: <535A6F23.1070409@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk" List-Id: References: <1398334639-14172-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1398334639-14172-12-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <53591669.7060502@cogentembedded.com> <5359209F.7000308@ti.com> <53594189.1090508@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <53594189.1090508@cogentembedded.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 24/04/14 19:53, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> Right. I wonder what the name should be... "gpio" is out, as the name >> should be more specific. >=20 > No, it's not out. The name should be "gpio@22", I think it would be > unique. >=20 >> We already have gpio1-8, which are the gpio >> banks from the SoC. >=20 > I don't understand why you are indexing the names while you probably= > have the address part after @ that makes them unique already. Ah sorry for the confusion, I misunderstood. I was talking about the label, not the name, of the node. So the labels for the gpio banks are 'gpio2' etc. The names are 'gpio@123456' etc. And yes, here the name should be 'gpio@22' as you said= =2E I didn't see any rules about the labels in the ePARP doc, so I guess 'tca6424a' would be a valid one. Maybe not a good one, though, especially if there are multiple tca6424a chips on the board (I need to check). Tomi --hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTWm8jAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71jjoP/1tnluzxcmK+M9SWyyMDc+n4 B43399t/y9faEQ48Iz4hiGeHJsFDxG/t5FHCckD9/5z0RcnxXcoyZPthRXFk4xps DV16+Kn/biB3axQm0/9wkDnxA/mu+xA43O5QSGNkKa+rJZqcz4FpJMk69xhzzPvh eFP3780F337/UEPLvn0RjrT1btYEEmJDmIm6/mKf6hTXIbLNxgEgqAwtgaTzxYzk 28EC2PtfW/SgTQITbLaSg1a2HeXVM++UQ7IaeGnl+VVXpLSWBzX9uVJEWjZt+Ajs oG/0nDZHfK+HOKpiAGC8bBrfxub/2q1Gwwk5A08fUxgRACXK9CXm7yUyGL48YcK5 kYUVsaEUz+2emuVEhNTy1IWPvp/R9aRZ9jot9XcTiQGzybiLQOXRtCJKKYyumdZj bvrkyLhXsrxxa5vu+uWWawr6OuWlJHoprGtejCPRbJDBePpJ6citHNnVEQ/eKsy+ Met2NhA3h2Rhrz2WWDJp28QTEvGRRmdxH5Xkju46KDCBuuOAYE4nb/tBGi858PwD iWCAFlsnalh9ArceuYtX77JNAR8gczxeo53GabUdgNPneFj9y0FbP+vFy9UXzb+Z l4LjF2rcE5m0yX3YxPlUSy5CGfMiUBgLehFnumNh+kEzyBoX52tRtg7j7OlpeBVo cyTWYJW8AjPggHrVcrSn =2YV/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/23] ARM: dts: omap5-uevm.dts: add tca6424a Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:20:19 +0300 Message-ID: <535A6F23.1070409@ti.com> References: <1398334639-14172-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1398334639-14172-12-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <53591669.7060502@cogentembedded.com> <5359209F.7000308@ti.com> <53594189.1090508@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk" Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:55521 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751593AbaDYOUq (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:20:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <53594189.1090508@cogentembedded.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov , Archit Taneja , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tony Lindgren --hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 24/04/14 19:53, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> Right. I wonder what the name should be... "gpio" is out, as the name >> should be more specific. >=20 > No, it's not out. The name should be "gpio@22", I think it would be > unique. >=20 >> We already have gpio1-8, which are the gpio >> banks from the SoC. >=20 > I don't understand why you are indexing the names while you probably= > have the address part after @ that makes them unique already. Ah sorry for the confusion, I misunderstood. I was talking about the label, not the name, of the node. So the labels for the gpio banks are 'gpio2' etc. The names are 'gpio@123456' etc. And yes, here the name should be 'gpio@22' as you said= =2E I didn't see any rules about the labels in the ePARP doc, so I guess 'tca6424a' would be a valid one. Maybe not a good one, though, especially if there are multiple tca6424a chips on the board (I need to check). Tomi --hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTWm8jAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71jjoP/1tnluzxcmK+M9SWyyMDc+n4 B43399t/y9faEQ48Iz4hiGeHJsFDxG/t5FHCckD9/5z0RcnxXcoyZPthRXFk4xps DV16+Kn/biB3axQm0/9wkDnxA/mu+xA43O5QSGNkKa+rJZqcz4FpJMk69xhzzPvh eFP3780F337/UEPLvn0RjrT1btYEEmJDmIm6/mKf6hTXIbLNxgEgqAwtgaTzxYzk 28EC2PtfW/SgTQITbLaSg1a2HeXVM++UQ7IaeGnl+VVXpLSWBzX9uVJEWjZt+Ajs oG/0nDZHfK+HOKpiAGC8bBrfxub/2q1Gwwk5A08fUxgRACXK9CXm7yUyGL48YcK5 kYUVsaEUz+2emuVEhNTy1IWPvp/R9aRZ9jot9XcTiQGzybiLQOXRtCJKKYyumdZj bvrkyLhXsrxxa5vu+uWWawr6OuWlJHoprGtejCPRbJDBePpJ6citHNnVEQ/eKsy+ Met2NhA3h2Rhrz2WWDJp28QTEvGRRmdxH5Xkju46KDCBuuOAYE4nb/tBGi858PwD iWCAFlsnalh9ArceuYtX77JNAR8gczxeo53GabUdgNPneFj9y0FbP+vFy9UXzb+Z l4LjF2rcE5m0yX3YxPlUSy5CGfMiUBgLehFnumNh+kEzyBoX52tRtg7j7OlpeBVo cyTWYJW8AjPggHrVcrSn =2YV/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hrwwtud2Ndf5ILrJNiwcN57L8rw2UWqOk-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:20:19 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 11/23] ARM: dts: omap5-uevm.dts: add tca6424a In-Reply-To: <53594189.1090508@cogentembedded.com> References: <1398334639-14172-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1398334639-14172-12-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <53591669.7060502@cogentembedded.com> <5359209F.7000308@ti.com> <53594189.1090508@cogentembedded.com> Message-ID: <535A6F23.1070409@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 24/04/14 19:53, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> Right. I wonder what the name should be... "gpio" is out, as the name >> should be more specific. > > No, it's not out. The name should be "gpio at 22", I think it would be > unique. > >> We already have gpio1-8, which are the gpio >> banks from the SoC. > > I don't understand why you are indexing the names while you probably > have the address part after @ that makes them unique already. Ah sorry for the confusion, I misunderstood. I was talking about the label, not the name, of the node. So the labels for the gpio banks are 'gpio2' etc. The names are 'gpio at 123456' etc. And yes, here the name should be 'gpio at 22' as you said. I didn't see any rules about the labels in the ePARP doc, so I guess 'tca6424a' would be a valid one. Maybe not a good one, though, especially if there are multiple tca6424a chips on the board (I need to check). Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: