| Message ID | 1368034349-15091-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > If you've got MACH_EXYNOS5_DT but not MACH_EXYNOS4_DT you'll be > missing the pincontrol definitions. Add them for exynos5. > > Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > index 6e77432..cdcd7fa 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > @@ -428,6 +428,8 @@ config MACH_EXYNOS5_DT > depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5 > select ARM_AMBA > select CLKSRC_OF > + select PINCTRL > + select PINCTRL_EXYNOS Nit: Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry long-term; all boards will be dt-only. -Olof
Olof, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead > of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry > long-term; all boards will be dt-only. Good point. Hopefully someone at Samsung can work on removing the board itself? If you'd like me to take this on then let me know and I can put it on my list. I'm happy to resubmit my patch under ARCH_EXYNOS5. I'll move the exynos4 one at the same time. I'm going to make the assumption that PINCTRL_EXYNOS and PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 can happily coexist. Certainly I've got both defined in my tree right now and nothing blows up. I haven't tested on 5440 but things ought to be handled by "compatible" checks, right? I'll also assume that eventually someone will move PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 into PINCTRL_EXYNOS. If PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 won't eventually move under PINCTRL_EXYNOS then it makes less sense to define PINCTRL_EXYNOS for all exynos parts. -Doug
Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > Olof, > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead >> of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry >> long-term; all boards will be dt-only. > > Good point. Hopefully someone at Samsung can work on removing the > board itself? If you'd like me to take this on then let me know and I > can put it on my list. Nothing stops you from doing that on your own. I tend to push back onto the maintainers to get them engaged in their own housekeeping, but anyone is free to :) > I'm happy to resubmit my patch under ARCH_EXYNOS5. I'll move the > exynos4 one at the same time. Great. > I'm going to make the assumption that PINCTRL_EXYNOS and > PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 can happily coexist. Certainly I've got both > defined in my tree right now and nothing blows up. I haven't tested > on 5440 but things ought to be handled by "compatible" checks, right? Yes, if they can't coexist then that's a bug. > I'll also assume that eventually someone will move PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 > into PINCTRL_EXYNOS. If PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 won't eventually move > under PINCTRL_EXYNOS then it makes less sense to define PINCTRL_EXYNOS > for all exynos parts. Yeah, it should -- this is just in transition since 5440 was first out of the gate with pinctrl. -Olof
Hi Doug, Olof, On Wednesday 08 of May 2013 12:33:34 Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > Olof, > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > >> Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead > >> of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry > >> long-term; all boards will be dt-only. > > > > Good point. Hopefully someone at Samsung can work on removing the > > board itself? If you'd like me to take this on then let me know and I > > can put it on my list. > > Nothing stops you from doing that on your own. I tend to push back > onto the maintainers to get them engaged in their own housekeeping, > but anyone is free to :) > > > I'm happy to resubmit my patch under ARCH_EXYNOS5. I'll move the > > exynos4 one at the same time. > > Great. > > > I'm going to make the assumption that PINCTRL_EXYNOS and > > PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 can happily coexist. Certainly I've got both > > defined in my tree right now and nothing blows up. I haven't tested > > on 5440 but things ought to be handled by "compatible" checks, right? > > Yes, if they can't coexist then that's a bug. > > > I'll also assume that eventually someone will move PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 > > into PINCTRL_EXYNOS. If PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 won't eventually move > > under PINCTRL_EXYNOS then it makes less sense to define PINCTRL_EXYNOS > > for all exynos parts. > > Yeah, it should -- this is just in transition since 5440 was first out > of the gate with pinctrl. AFAIK, Exynos5440 contains a completely different pin controller block, which is not compatible with pinctrl-samsung driver, so I don't see any point of moving it under PINCTRL_EXYNOS, which is currently used for Exynos 4210, 4x12 and 5250, but will be also extended with driver data for S5PV210 as well. I'd say that CPU_EXYNOS4210, SOC_EXYNOS4212, SOC_EXYNOS4412 and SOC_EXYNOS5250 should select PINCTRL_EXYNOS and SOC_EXYNOS5440 should be left as is, selecting PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440. Best regards,
Tomasz / Olof, On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> wrote: >> Nothing stops you from doing that on your own. I tend to push back >> onto the maintainers to get them engaged in their own housekeeping, >> but anyone is free to :) I will probably leave this to the maintainers at this point... ;) >> Yeah, it should -- this is just in transition since 5440 was first out >> of the gate with pinctrl. > > AFAIK, Exynos5440 contains a completely different pin controller block, which > is not compatible with pinctrl-samsung driver, so I don't see any point of > moving it under PINCTRL_EXYNOS, which is currently used for Exynos 4210, 4x12 > and 5250, but will be also extended with driver data for S5PV210 as well. > > I'd say that CPU_EXYNOS4210, SOC_EXYNOS4212, SOC_EXYNOS4412 and SOC_EXYNOS5250 > should select PINCTRL_EXYNOS and SOC_EXYNOS5440 should be left as is, > selecting PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440. OK, sounds reasonable. I didn't dig into all of the details of the 5440 pin control driver and don't have a user manual in front of me. I will do as you say. New patch coming shortly. -Doug
Doug Anderson wrote: > > Tomasz / Olof, > Hi Doug, Tomasz and Olof > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> wrote: > >> Nothing stops you from doing that on your own. I tend to push back > >> onto the maintainers to get them engaged in their own housekeeping, > >> but anyone is free to :) > > I will probably leave this to the maintainers at this point... ;) > > >> Yeah, it should -- this is just in transition since 5440 was first out > >> of the gate with pinctrl. > > > > AFAIK, Exynos5440 contains a completely different pin controller block, > which > > is not compatible with pinctrl-samsung driver, so I don't see any point > of > > moving it under PINCTRL_EXYNOS, which is currently used for Exynos 4210, > 4x12 > > and 5250, but will be also extended with driver data for S5PV210 as well. > > > > I'd say that CPU_EXYNOS4210, SOC_EXYNOS4212, SOC_EXYNOS4412 and > SOC_EXYNOS5250 > > should select PINCTRL_EXYNOS and SOC_EXYNOS5440 should be left as is, > > selecting PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440. > > OK, sounds reasonable. I didn't dig into all of the details of the > 5440 pin control driver and don't have a user manual in front of me. > I will do as you say. > Tomasz is right. The current exynos pinctrl stuff is quite different with exynos5440 pinctrl, it means there is no reason to move exynos5440 pinctrl under exynos pinctrl. Of course, both can be built together without problem. > New patch coming shortly. > Thanks, the PINCTRL_EXYNOS can be moved into under SoC condition not board. - Kukjin
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig index 6e77432..cdcd7fa 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig @@ -428,6 +428,8 @@ config MACH_EXYNOS5_DT depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5 select ARM_AMBA select CLKSRC_OF + select PINCTRL + select PINCTRL_EXYNOS select USB_ARCH_HAS_XHCI select USE_OF help
If you've got MACH_EXYNOS5_DT but not MACH_EXYNOS4_DT you'll be missing the pincontrol definitions. Add them for exynos5. Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> --- arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)