From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 21:43:52 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: dts: davinci: da850: add VPIF In-Reply-To: <51071aa1-50c5-1121-3e64-018edaf544bf@lechnology.com> (David Lechner's message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:00:29 -0600") References: <20161122194551.3420-1-khilman@baylibre.com> <20161122194551.3420-3-khilman@baylibre.com> <51071aa1-50c5-1121-3e64-018edaf544bf@lechnology.com> Message-ID: <7hh96yiwdj.fsf@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org David Lechner writes: > On 11/22/2016 01:45 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Add VPIF and VPIF capture nodes to da850. VPIF capture has two input >> channels describe using the standard DT ports and enpoints. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> index 6205917b4f59..e05e2bb834e8 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> @@ -453,7 +453,35 @@ >> interrupts = <52>; >> status = "disabled"; >> }; >> + >> + vpif: video at 0x00217000 { > > Should be @217000 > >> + compatible = "ti,da850-vpif"; >> + reg = <0x00217000 0x1000>; > > Could omit leading 0's to be consistent with existing entries. > > reg = <0x217000 0x1000>; Ugh, yeah. I hate that convention, but better to be consistent, I guess. >> + status = "disabled"; >> + }; >> + >> + vpif_capture: video-capture at 0x00217000 { > > Again, @217000. But it seems odd to have two device nodes with the > same address. Is enabling these mutually exclusive? They're not mutually exclusive because the vpif is the one that actually maps the register range (since it's shared between vpif_display and vpif_capture) so I guess I should just drop the reg property from the vpif_capture node. >> + compatible = "ti,da850-vpif-capture"; >> + reg = <0x00217000 0x1000>; > > Ditto on the leading 0's. > Thanks for the review, Kevin