From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nsekhar@ti.com (Sekhar Nori)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:24:47 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: da850: Add node for pullup/pulldown pinconf
In-Reply-To: <06bc8517-8c33-85a1-9d5a-29042c7281db@lechnology.com>
References: <1479871767-20160-1-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com>
 <1479871767-20160-4-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com>
 <8c3e6535-4b79-9731-f801-c13f007e48ab@ti.com>
 <06bc8517-8c33-85a1-9d5a-29042c7281db@lechnology.com>
Message-ID: <263cdd6d-ed04-647e-a4e9-4e3e094e54d9@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wednesday 23 November 2016 09:54 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown
>>> bias on groups of pins.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@
>>>              };
>>>
>>>          };
>>> +        pinconf: pin-controller at 22c00c {
>>> +            compatible = "ti,da850-pupd";
>>> +            reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>;
>>> +            status = "disabled";
>>> +        };
>>
>> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the
>> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today,
>> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up.
> 
> I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here is
> to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart are
> together, etc.)

Yeah, but that quickly gives away as there are many singleton devices
and everyone tries to add theirs at the end of the list resulting in
merge conflicts.

> Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this
> cleaned up be acceptable?

Agree with Kevin that it would be churn. If done, it should be last
thing that gets done in a merge window. I would not attempt it in
relatively busy merge windows like this one.

Thanks,
Sekhar