From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] dts: versatile: add sysregs nodes Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:53:37 +0000 Message-ID: <20150109115337.GA18609@red-moon> References: <1419967718-26909-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <1419967718-26909-6-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Russell King , Peter Maydell , "arm-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , Bjorn Helgaas , Liviu Dudau , Sudeep Holla , pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc'ing Pawel since he wrote the sysreg code On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 07:10:36AM +0000, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >> compatible = "syscon"; > > > > maybe? VExpress is missing that then... > > I don't like the way some vexpress stuff has been done I think, just > not enough reviewing power :( I think that "syscon" is not meant to be there in the first place and it was done on purpose for vexpress but I need Pawel to confirm and shed light on this. > I've tried to make an as clean separation as possible in the Integrator > as it has been refactored with a minimum of time pressure and > I tried to make it as reusable as possible. But it doesn't necessarily > mean I did the right thing all the time ... > > >>> + reg = <0x00000 0x1000>; > >>> + > >>> + v2m_led_gpios: sys_led@08 { > >>> + compatible = "arm,vexpress-sysreg,sys_led"; > >>> + gpio-controller; > >>> + #gpio-cells = <2>; > >>> + }; > >> > >> These are not GPIOs. These are LED registers really. > > > > A register bit that controls an i/o signal sounds like a GPIO to me. > > Are they described as general purpose in the manual for the > board? > > In the ARM reference design manuals I've seen these bits are > described as for one purpose only. I mean you can claim the > memory RE signal is "a bit that controls an I/O signal" as well, > but we have to think about the abstraction here. I will have a look into this. Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html