On Saturday 05 November 2016 01:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
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.
Okay Linus. Thanks for the direction.
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
