Hi Steffen, On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 04:58:03PM +0100, Steffen Trumtrar wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:34:50AM -0500, delicious quinoa wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Yes, we'll post a patch up on rocketboards-next and maybe we can post them > > > to the mailing list too? > > > > > Hi Steffen, > > > > I've posted a branch on rocketboards.orgs' linux-socfpga-next.git. > > The branch name is dwapb-gpio-3.11. > > > > good. I will have a look. > > > The top five patches are: > > 1. Remove the Altera gpio-dw.c driver > > 2 & 3. Cherrypick Jamie's stuff from his git repo > > 4. Enable gpio-dwapb in our defconfig and dts > > 5. This is the main patch here: use irq_domain_add_linear for > > gpio-dwapb.c plus a few bug fixes. > > > > If you'd rather see that last patch on the mailing list, I can post it > > there for review. > > > > I wonder if we want to really keep the binding as it is proposed by > Jamie. Do we really win anything by having to specify the banks in the > DT? In my version I get the number of ports, width etc. from the config registers > of the device. I think everything that the device knows itself and can be read > out at runtime shouldn't be specified in the DT. > And it seems that the binding was never merged, so I guess we can change it. The reason for having it split into banks is that for hardware that has a mixture of bank sizes (odd hardware admittedly, but that includes hardware that I was writing the driver for), we had a setup like 16 pins on bank A, 16 on B, 1 on C and 16 on D where each bank could have a maximum of 32, so converting from a data sheet to GPIO number is not obvious. Grant Likely suggested representing the banks as different devices, so that's how I created the binding. Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
