| Message ID | 1479871767-20160-4-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote: > This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown > bias on groups of pins. > > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ > }; > > }; > + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c { > + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; > + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; > + status = "disabled"; > + }; Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today, but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up. Thanks, Sekhar
On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: > On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote: >> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown >> bias on groups of pins. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ >> }; >> >> }; >> + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c { >> + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; >> + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; >> + status = "disabled"; >> + }; > > Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the > nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today, > but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up. I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart are together, etc.) Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this cleaned up be acceptable? > > Thanks, > Sekhar >
David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> writes: > On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote: >>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown >>> bias on groups of pins. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ >>> }; >>> >>> }; >>> + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c { >>> + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; >>> + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; >>> + status = "disabled"; >>> + }; >> >> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the >> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today, >> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up. > > I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here > is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart > are together, etc.) > > Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this > cleaned up be acceptable? No thanks. That kind of thing is the needless churn that gets us flamed. Kevin
On Wednesday 23 November 2016 09:54 PM, David Lechner wrote: > On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote: >>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown >>> bias on groups of pins. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ >>> }; >>> >>> }; >>> + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c { >>> + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; >>> + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; >>> + status = "disabled"; >>> + }; >> >> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the >> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today, >> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up. > > I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here is > to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart are > together, etc.) Yeah, but that quickly gives away as there are many singleton devices and everyone tries to add theirs at the end of the list resulting in merge conflicts. > Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this > cleaned up be acceptable? Agree with Kevin that it would be churn. If done, it should be last thing that gets done in a merge window. I would not attempt it in relatively busy merge windows like this one. Thanks, Sekhar
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ }; }; + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c { + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; + status = "disabled"; + }; prictrl: priority-controller@14110 { compatible = "ti,da850-mstpri"; reg = <0x14110 0x0c>;
This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown bias on groups of pins. Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)