| Message ID | 1350981432-6750-2-git-send-email-s-guiriec@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Seb, On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: > Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for > OMAP5 > > Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi > index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi > @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ > > gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { > compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; > + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; > + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; > ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; > gpio-controller; > #gpio-cells = <2>; I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device node. So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent". Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. Cheers Jon
On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > Hi Seb, > > On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: >> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for >> OMAP5 >> >> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ >> >> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { >> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; >> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; >> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; >> ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; >> gpio-controller; >> #gpio-cells = <2>; > > I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add > nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent > is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a > device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device > node. > > So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for > "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It > will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent". > > Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if > we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time. That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what is the real impact. Regards, Benoit
On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> Hi Seb, >> >> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: >>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for >>> OMAP5 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ >>> >>> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { >>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; >>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; >>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; >>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; >>> gpio-controller; >>> #gpio-cells = <2>; >> >> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add >> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent >> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a >> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device >> node. >> >> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for >> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It >> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent". >> >> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if >> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. > > Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so > increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current > case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already > un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time. Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things down. > That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what > is the real impact. Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way. Cheers Jon
On 10/23/2012 05:59 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >> On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> Hi Seb, >>> >>> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: >>>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for >>>> OMAP5 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ >>>> >>>> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { >>>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; >>>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; >>>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; >>>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; >>>> gpio-controller; >>>> #gpio-cells = <2>; >>> >>> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add >>> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent >>> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a >>> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device >>> node. >>> >>> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for >>> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It >>> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent". >>> >>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if >>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. >> >> Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so >> increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current >> case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already >> un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time. > > Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things down. > >> That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what >> is the real impact. > > Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get > an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add > the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should > be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can > easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way. For consistency, I'd rather not add it at all for the moment. Later, when we will only support DT boot, people will start complaining about the boot time increase and then we will start optimizing a little bit :-) Regards, Benoit
Hi Benoit and John, On 10/23/2012 06:07 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > On 10/23/2012 05:59 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>> On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> Hi Seb, >>>> >>>> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: >>>>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for >>>>> OMAP5 >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ >>>>> >>>>> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { >>>>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; >>>>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; >>>>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; >>>>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; >>>>> gpio-controller; >>>>> #gpio-cells = <2>; >>>> >>>> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add >>>> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent >>>> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a >>>> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device >>>> node. >>>> >>>> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for >>>> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It >>>> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent". >>>> >>>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if >>>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. >>> >>> Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so >>> increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current >>> case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already >>> un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time. >> >> Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things down. >> >>> That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what >>> is the real impact. >> >> Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get >> an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add >> the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should >> be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can >> easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way. > > For consistency, I'd rather not add it at all for the moment. > Later, when we will only support DT boot, people will start complaining > about the boot time increase and then we will start optimizing a little > bit :-) I just do it like that to be consistent with what is inside OMAP4 dtsi for those IPs (GPIO/UART/MMC/I2C). Now after checking Peter already add the interrupt-parent for all audio IPs (OMAP3/4/5). But here we need also interrupts name. So here we should try to be consistent. So I can send back the series for OMAP5 and update the OMAP4 with interrupts-parent = <&gic> As of today we are not consistent. > > Regards, > Benoit > >
On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote: > Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if > we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. I strongly suspect (based on many years of performance tuning, with special focus on boot time) that the time difference will be completely insignificant. The total extra time for walking up the interrupt tree for every interrupt in a large system is comparable to the time it takes to send a few characters out a UART. So you can get more improvement from eliminating a single printk() than from globally adding per-node interrupt-parent. Furthermore, the cost of processing all of the interrupt-parent properties is probably similar to the cost of the avoided tree walks. CPU cycles are very fast compared to I/O register accesses, say a factor of 100. Now consider that many modern devices contain embedded microcontrollers (SD cards, network interface modules, USB hubs and devices, ...), and those devices usually require various delays measured in milliseconds, to ensure that the microcontroller is ready for the next initialization step. Those delays are extremely long compared to CPU cycles. Obviously, some of that can be overlapped by careful multithreading, but that isn't free either. The bottom line is that I'm pretty sure that adding per-node interrupt-parent would not be worthwhile from the standpoint of speeding up boot time.
Hi Mitch, On 10/23/2012 11:55 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if >> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. > > I strongly suspect (based on many years of performance tuning, with > special focus on boot time) that the time difference will be completely > insignificant. The total extra time for walking up the interrupt tree > for every interrupt in a large system is comparable to the time it takes > to send a few characters out a UART. So you can get more improvement > from eliminating a single printk() than from globally adding per-node > interrupt-parent. > > Furthermore, the cost of processing all of the interrupt-parent > properties is probably similar to the cost of the avoided tree walks. > > CPU cycles are very fast compared to I/O register accesses, say a factor > of 100. Now consider that many modern devices contain embedded > microcontrollers (SD cards, network interface modules, USB hubs and > devices, ...), and those devices usually require various delays measured > in milliseconds, to ensure that the microcontroller is ready for the > next initialization step. Those delays are extremely long compared to > CPU cycles. Obviously, some of that can be overlapped by careful > multithreading, but that isn't free either. > > The bottom line is that I'm pretty sure that adding per-node > interrupt-parent would not be worthwhile from the standpoint of speeding > up boot time. Absolutely, I don't expect this to miraculously improve the boot time or suggest that this is a major contributor to boot time, but what is the best approach in general in terms of efficiency (memory and time). In other words, is there a best practice? And from your feedback, I understand that adding a global interrupt-parent is a good practice. For a bit of fun, I took an omap4430 board and benchmarked the time taken by the of_irq_find_parent() when interrupt-parent was defined for each node using interrupts and without. There were a total of 47 device nodes using interrupts. Adding the interrupt-parent to all 47 nodes increased the dtb from 13211 bytes to 13963 bytes. On boot-up I saw 117 calls to of_irq_find_parent() for this platform (there appears to be multiple calls for a given device). Without interrupt-parent defined for each node total time spent in of_irq_find_parent() was 1.028 ms where as with interrupt-parent defined for each node the total time was 0.4032 ms. This was done using a 38.4MHz timer and the overhead of reading the timer 117 times was about 36 us. I understand that this does not provide the full picture, but I wanted to get a better handle on the times here. So yes the overall overhead here is not significant for us to worry about. Cheers Jon
On 10/23/2012 1:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > Hi Mitch, > > On 10/23/2012 11:55 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote: >> On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if >>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. >> >> I strongly suspect (based on many years of performance tuning, with >> special focus on boot time) that the time difference will be completely >> insignificant. The total extra time for walking up the interrupt tree >> for every interrupt in a large system is comparable to the time it takes >> to send a few characters out a UART. So you can get more improvement >> from eliminating a single printk() than from globally adding per-node >> interrupt-parent. >> >> Furthermore, the cost of processing all of the interrupt-parent >> properties is probably similar to the cost of the avoided tree walks. >> >> CPU cycles are very fast compared to I/O register accesses, say a factor >> of 100. Now consider that many modern devices contain embedded >> microcontrollers (SD cards, network interface modules, USB hubs and >> devices, ...), and those devices usually require various delays measured >> in milliseconds, to ensure that the microcontroller is ready for the >> next initialization step. Those delays are extremely long compared to >> CPU cycles. Obviously, some of that can be overlapped by careful >> multithreading, but that isn't free either. >> >> The bottom line is that I'm pretty sure that adding per-node >> interrupt-parent would not be worthwhile from the standpoint of speeding >> up boot time. > > Absolutely, I don't expect this to miraculously improve the boot time or > suggest that this is a major contributor to boot time, but what is the > best approach in general in terms of efficiency (memory and time). In > other words, is there a best practice? And from your feedback, I > understand that adding a global interrupt-parent is a good practice. From a maintenance standpoint, "saying it once" is best practice. Time that you don't spend doing unnecessary maintenance can be spent looking for other, higher value, improvements. And when you do need to optimize something, it's much easier if the function is centralized. Pushing the interrupt parent up the tree to the appropriate point can make the next platform easier, opening the possibility of changing just one thing instead of several dozen. There have been several cases when I have violated good factoring in order to save a little time, only to have to undo it later when the next system was enough different that the de-factored version didn't work. So, while there are certainly cases where you are forced to do otherwise, I generally like the "don't repeat yourself" mantra. > > For a bit of fun, I took an omap4430 board and benchmarked the time > taken by the of_irq_find_parent() when interrupt-parent was defined for > each node using interrupts and without. > > There were a total of 47 device nodes using interrupts. Adding the > interrupt-parent to all 47 nodes increased the dtb from 13211 bytes to > 13963 bytes. > > On boot-up I saw 117 calls to of_irq_find_parent() for this platform > (there appears to be multiple calls for a given device). Without > interrupt-parent defined for each node total time spent in > of_irq_find_parent() was 1.028 ms where as with interrupt-parent defined > for each node the total time was 0.4032 ms. This was done using a > 38.4MHz timer and the overhead of reading the timer 117 times was about > 36 us. That sounds about right. The savings of 600 us is 6 characters at 115200 baud. > > I understand that this does not provide the full picture, but I wanted > to get a better handle on the times here. So yes the overall overhead > here is not significant for us to worry about. Big ticket items for boot time improvement are time spent waiting for peripheral devices to become ready and time spent spewing diagnostic messages. But in the final analysis, you just have to measure what is happening and see what you can do to improve it. In my experience, CPU cycles are rarely problematic, unless they are artificially slowed down due to caches being off or due to direct execution from slow memory like ROMs. I once shaved an hour off the startup time for a PowerPC system by moving some critical code into cache. This was on a prototype "chip" that was being emulated by arrays of FPGAs. On the first generation OLPC XO-1 machine we were really interested in super-fast wakeup from suspend. I tuned that firmware code path to the nth degree, finally getting stuck at 2 ms because you had to wait that long before accessing the PCI bus interface, otherwise the SD controller chip would lock up. Then I transferred control to the kernel, which had to wait something like 40 ms (two display frame times) to re-sync the video subsystem, then it had to re-enable the USB subsystem, which ended up taking a good fraction of a second. Things haven't gotten much better (in fact they are probably worse), because, even the the CPUs have gotten faster, there are more peripherals with hard-to-avoid delays. So, in the end, a few sub-millisecond delays just don't matter. > > Cheers > Jon > >
On 10/23/2012 06:15 PM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: > Hi Benoit and John, > > On 10/23/2012 06:07 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >> On 10/23/2012 05:59 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>> On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>>> Hi Seb, >>>>> >>>>> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote: >>>>>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for >>>>>> OMAP5 >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi >>>>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ >>>>>> >>>>>> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { >>>>>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; >>>>>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; >>>>>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; >>>>>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; >>>>>> gpio-controller; >>>>>> #gpio-cells = <2>; >>>>> >>>>> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add >>>>> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the >>>>> interrupt-parent >>>>> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt >>>>> for a >>>>> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current >>>>> device >>>>> node. >>>>> >>>>> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for >>>>> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search >>>>> again. It >>>>> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent". >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot >>>>> time if >>>>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node. >>>> >>>> Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so >>>> increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current >>>> case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already >>>> un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time. >>> >>> Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things >>> down. >>> >>>> That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what >>>> is the real impact. >>> >>> Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get >>> an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add >>> the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should >>> be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can >>> easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way. >> >> For consistency, I'd rather not add it at all for the moment. >> Later, when we will only support DT boot, people will start complaining >> about the boot time increase and then we will start optimizing a little >> bit :-) > > I just do it like that to be consistent with what is inside OMAP4 dtsi > for those IPs (GPIO/UART/MMC/I2C). Now after checking Peter already add > the interrupt-parent for all audio IPs (OMAP3/4/5). But here we need > also interrupts name. So here we should try to be consistent. > > So I can send back the series for OMAP5 and update the OMAP4 with > interrupts-parent = <&gic> No, you should not, as explained previously. You'd better remove the one already in audio IPs for consistency. Regards, Benoit
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio1"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -113,6 +115,8 @@ gpio2: gpio@48055000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x48055000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 30 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio2"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -122,6 +126,8 @@ gpio3: gpio@48057000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x48057000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 31 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio3"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -131,6 +137,8 @@ gpio4: gpio@48059000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x48059000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 32 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio4"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -140,6 +148,8 @@ gpio5: gpio@4805b000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x4805b000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 33 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio5"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -149,6 +159,8 @@ gpio6: gpio@4805d000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x4805d000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 34 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio6"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -158,6 +170,8 @@ gpio7: gpio@48051000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x48051000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 35 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio7"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>; @@ -167,6 +181,8 @@ gpio8: gpio@48053000 { compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio"; + reg = <0x48053000 0x200>; + interrupts = <0 121 0x4>; ti,hwmods = "gpio8"; gpio-controller; #gpio-cells = <2>;
Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for OMAP5 Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)