On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 03:23:05PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > on an i.MX25 machine on my desk a UART RX line is guarded by a transistor
> > like this:
> >
> > ,------------------------.
> > | ,---------. |
> > | | imx25 o--RX----◁---o---
> > | | o--GPIO--' |
> > | `---------' |
> > `------------------------'
>
> This is inside the SoC, right, not outside it?
>
> In the rest of my answer I assume this.
No, that's on the board. So your reply unfortunately doesn't match the
problem :-|
> If this is on the board, using enable-gpios is proper.
enable-gpios as I suggested below that is? If so I assume you will be
open for a generic approach to implement this?
> > My first idea was to make this a property of the UART and added a
> > enable-gpios property for it[1]. But now I wonder if this is better
> > abstracted as an enable-gpios property in the pinctrl node. Something
> > like:
> >
> > pinctrl_uart5: uart5 {
> > fsl,pins = <
> > MX25_PAD_ECB__UART5_TXD 0x00002080 /* TXD */
> > MX25_PAD_LBA__UART5_RXD 0x00000000 /* RXD */
> > MX25_PAD_CS4__UART5_CTS 0x00002001 /* RTS */
> > MX25_PAD_CS5__GPIO_3_21 0x00002001 /* #RXD_EN */
> > >;
> > enable-gpios = <&gpio3 21 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > };
> >
> > Would this make sense? Maybe with a more intuitive name?
(kept for reference)
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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
