On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/14/2016 06:42 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> I suspect that the Tegra definition of a "port" is close to what other >> people >> call a "bank" like I try to define in this patch? >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-gpio&m=145941547420164&w=2 > > There are similarities, but the concepts are quite different. In that > thread, the term "bank" actually refers to an instance of a standalone HW IP > block. Here, "port" is definitely something internal to a single HW block. OK I get it. I wonder if we can make that common terminology as well. GPIO bank := unique instance of a common IP block GPIO port := unique line range inside an IP block >> Again that use case. Can you please enter the mentioned thread >> and provide some input on how you see this working? > > I don't believe that thread applies to the Tegra GPIO controller. OK >> I noticed that the #defines in that tegra186-gpio.h file are not used >> in the example below. Something seems wrong: this mapping must >> be important. I don't see which of the required properties it should go >> into either. > > The defines would be used to calculate the GPIO ID cell of the GPIO > specifier in DT. They work in exactly the same way as other headers in > include/dt-bindings/gpio, in particular tegra-gpio.h is very similar in > structure. > > At present, there is no upstream-targeted Linux driver for this HW, and the > upstream DT has not been written. I'm working on a U-Boot driver, so need > the binding defined for that. You can find the U-Boot driver in this commit > list: OK I am ACKing this, your effort to use the Linux DTS as point of reference should be encouraged. >> So we definately need this stuff used in the example. > > Hmm. I really hope not. That would prevent getting DT bindings defined early > on for the HW, before drivers and DT are written for a platform. Any > existing Tegra DT file is a good example though; the structure of this > binding is essentially identical to the previous Tegra GPIO controller > binding. The only thing different is the exact values that go into the > properties, and the non-linear mapping of GPIO IDs. It's cool. Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> I assume you want to merge this through the Tegra tree, or should I apply it to the GPIO tree? Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
