On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 09:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> The DT model sort of mandates how the interrupts should be mapped
>> at this point, and as far as I can tell from the binding the example looks
>> like so:
>>
>> gpio: gpio@1e26000 {
>> compatible = "ti,dm6441-gpio";
>> gpio-controller;
>> #gpio-cells = <2>;
>> reg = <0x226000 0x1000>;
>> interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>> interrupts = <42 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH 43 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH
>> 44 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH 45 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH
>> 46 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH 47 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH
>> 48 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH 49 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH
>> 50 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>;
>> ti,ngpio = <144>;
>> ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked = <0>;
>> interrupt-controller;
>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> };
>
> Above, DT bindings models Davinci GPIO IP as monolithic GPIO controller
> with N gpio pins, but internally separate GPIO chips are created for each
> banksX&Y register set (32 pins, 2 banked irq -or- 32 direct irqs).
Hm it would be good to get away from that and just have one big gpio
chip.
> Translation from linear GPIO numbering to the proper internal GPIO chip is done
> using chip.of_xlate().
Yeah :/ this could be made simpler with a single chip just spanning all
the banks and the common registers I think.
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
