Hi,
Il 26/03/2018 12:01, Maxime Ripard ha scritto:
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 04:09:13PM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Le mercredi 21 mars 2018 à 21:03 +0100, Giulio Benetti a écrit :
The A20 supports RGB888 with H/V sync from LCD0. Add a pinmux setting
for the needed pins.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
index efb5607..bfe6728 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
@@ -922,6 +922,14 @@
pins = "PI20", "PI21";
function = "uart7";
};
+
+ lcd0_rgb888_pins: lcd0-rgb888-pins {
It would be more consistent with other pins definitions to have
underscores in both names and to indicate the index, such as:
lcd0_rgb888_pins: lcd0_rgb888_pins@0 {
Both your suggestions will generate DTC warnings, and we'd like to get
rid of them eventually :)
This way, other set of pins for LCD (PH0-PH27) can be declared as @1
when they are needed in the future.
A better idea would be to call it lcd0-rgb888-pd-pins, and introduce
the ph variant when it's done.
As I know, only PD is muxed with LCD0.
And PH is for LCD1 only.
And LCD0 seems to come out only from PD port according to datasheet,
this is why I didn't put @0 after lcd0-rgb888-pins.
So I don't think it makes sense to handle pins in the way Paul suggests.
What do you all think?
Giulio
Maxime
--
Giulio Benetti
CTO
MICRONOVA SRL
Sede: Via A. Niedda 3 - 35010 Vigonza (PD)
Tel. 049/8931563 - Fax 049/8931346
Cod.Fiscale - P.IVA 02663420285
Capitale Sociale € 26.000 i.v.
Iscritta al Reg. Imprese di Padova N. 02663420285
Numero R.E.A. 258642
--
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
