| Message ID | 1341580752-5501-2-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> writes: > The sys_nirq2 is used for twl6040, make sure the pin is configured > correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> > Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c > index c4e17641..72cd206 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c > @@ -827,6 +827,9 @@ static void __init omap_4430sdp_display_init(void) > #ifdef CONFIG_OMAP_MUX > static struct omap_board_mux board_mux[] __initdata = { > OMAP4_MUX(USBB2_ULPITLL_CLK, OMAP_MUX_MODE4 | OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT), > + /* NIRQ2 for twl6040 */ > + OMAP4_MUX(SYS_NIRQ2, OMAP_MUX_MODE0 | > + OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | OMAP_PIN_OFF_WAKEUPENABLE), Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code like I did for sys_nirq1: http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2 That would avoid having to do this in both board files. I thought about adding sys_nirq2 in my patch too, but did not know how to properly test it. Kevin > { .reg_offset = OMAP_MUX_TERMINATOR }, > }; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote: > Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> writes: > >> The sys_nirq2 is used for twl6040, make sure the pin is configured >> correctly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> >> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c | 3 +++ >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c >> index c4e17641..72cd206 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c >> @@ -827,6 +827,9 @@ static void __init omap_4430sdp_display_init(void) >> #ifdef CONFIG_OMAP_MUX >> static struct omap_board_mux board_mux[] __initdata = { >> OMAP4_MUX(USBB2_ULPITLL_CLK, OMAP_MUX_MODE4 | OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT), >> + /* NIRQ2 for twl6040 */ >> + OMAP4_MUX(SYS_NIRQ2, OMAP_MUX_MODE0 | >> + OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | OMAP_PIN_OFF_WAKEUPENABLE), > > Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code > like I did for sys_nirq1: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2 > > That would avoid having to do this in both board files. > Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices where the muxing can be different. With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not a strong requirement though. Regards Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/06/2012 04:33 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code >> like I did for sys_nirq1: >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2 >> >> That would avoid having to do this in both board files. >> > Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on > different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to > set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better > since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices > where the muxing can be different. > > With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not > a strong requirement though. There can be board which has twl6030 but does not have twl6040. The twl6040 is the recommended audio solution for OMAP4+ systems but it can be replaced by other codec on some boards. This is the reason I have put the mux configuration into the board files for sys_nirq2 (which is in these cases are used to handle the interrupt from twl6040).
* Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> [120709 02:43]: > On 07/06/2012 04:33 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > >> Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code > >> like I did for sys_nirq1: > >> > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2 > >> > >> That would avoid having to do this in both board files. > >> > > Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on > > different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to > > set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better > > since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices > > where the muxing can be different. > > > > With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not > > a strong requirement though. > > There can be board which has twl6030 but does not have twl6040. > The twl6040 is the recommended audio solution for OMAP4+ systems but it can be > replaced by other codec on some boards. > This is the reason I have put the mux configuration into the board files for > sys_nirq2 (which is in these cases are used to handle the interrupt from twl6040). OK I'll apply these into devel-board branch. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> writes: > On 07/06/2012 04:33 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >>> Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code >>> like I did for sys_nirq1: >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2 >>> >>> That would avoid having to do this in both board files. >>> >> Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on >> different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to >> set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better >> since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices >> where the muxing can be different. >> >> With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not >> a strong requirement though. > > There can be board which has twl6030 but does not have twl6040. > The twl6040 is the recommended audio solution for OMAP4+ systems but it can be > replaced by other codec on some boards. > This is the reason I have put the mux configuration into the board files for > sys_nirq2 (which is in these cases are used to handle the interrupt from twl6040). OK, sounds right. Thanks for the clarification. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c index c4e17641..72cd206 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c @@ -827,6 +827,9 @@ static void __init omap_4430sdp_display_init(void) #ifdef CONFIG_OMAP_MUX static struct omap_board_mux board_mux[] __initdata = { OMAP4_MUX(USBB2_ULPITLL_CLK, OMAP_MUX_MODE4 | OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT), + /* NIRQ2 for twl6040 */ + OMAP4_MUX(SYS_NIRQ2, OMAP_MUX_MODE0 | + OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | OMAP_PIN_OFF_WAKEUPENABLE), { .reg_offset = OMAP_MUX_TERMINATOR }, };