From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: tegra: fix missing pincontrol configuration for Venice2 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:44:24 +0530 Message-ID: <52B29CD0.1000801@nvidia.com> References: <1387371179-16725-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <52B20C0D.9030200@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52B20C0D.9030200-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Warren , "thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" Cc: "mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org" , "linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 19 December 2013 02:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 12/18/2013 05:52 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> Compare the initial population of default pinmux configuration of Venice2 >> with the chrome branch and add/fix the missing configurations. > Wow, that's a big chunk of changes. Are you sure this is correct? Why > was the original patch (which added the pinctrl nodes) so incorrect? The pinmux which got added is based on the venice2 pinmux spreadsheet where I covered only the SFIO pin groups. https://wiki.nvidia.com/engwiki/index.php/Platform_Design_Center/Projects_Archive/PM371#pinmux After comparing with the chrome, I also added the pinmux for all pins which are used as GPIO and hence the change is big. This is complete pinmux based on chrome kernel-next. I booted chrome with this pinmux and not observe any behavioral change. > Thierry, I thought you had mentioned comparing the pinctrl setup in > linux-next with the downstream kernel for Venice2 and only found a > difference in the PWM settings, which you sent a patch for. However, > this patch is much larger than that. Where's the disconnect?