From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] ARM: tegra: Add gpio-ranges property Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 09:40:33 -0600 Message-ID: <556DCE71.7050108@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1432565608-26036-1-git-send-email-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> <1432565608-26036-3-git-send-email-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> <5564CC84.1030700@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Tomeu Vizoso , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIE1hcmNoZXNpbg==?= , Thierry Reding , Dmitry Torokhov , Alexander Holler , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Russell King , Alexandre Courbot , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/02/2015 05:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/25/2015 08:53 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> >>> Specify how the GPIOs map to the pins in T124, so the dependency is >>> explicit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi >>> index 13cc7ca..5d1d35f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi >>> @@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ >>> gpio-controller; >>> #interrupt-cells = <2>; >>> interrupt-controller; >>> + gpio-ranges = <&pinmux 0 0 250>; >> >> >> We should be consistent between SoCs. Why not make the same change for all >> Tegra SoCs? > > Agreed. > >> I think this change will cause the GPIO subsystem to call into the pinctrl >> subsystem and create/add/register a new GPIO<->pinctrl range structure. The >> pinctrl driver already does this, so I think we'll end up with two duplicate >> entries in the pinctrl device's gpio_ranges list. This probably won't cause >> a problem, but I wanted to make sure you'd thought about it to make sure. > > That sounds like duplication indeed, I would expect that first a patch > adds the ranges to the dts[i] files and then a second patch delete the > same ranges from the pinctrl driver then, if these shall come in from > the device tree. We can't delete the gpio-range-registration code from the Tegra pinmux driver, or old DTs won't work correctly. We could make it conditional based upon whether the DT contains the property or not. -- 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