On 2018-05-11 8:24 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Levin Du <djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2018-05-10 8:50 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 10/05/18 10:16, djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Levin Du <djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Adding a new gpio controller named "gpio-syscon10" to rk3328, providing
access to the pins defined in the syscon GRF_SOC_CON10.
This is the GPIO_MUTE pin, right? The public TRM is rather vague, but
cross-referencing against the datasheet and schematics implies that it's the
"gpiomut_*" part of the GRF bit names which is most significant.
It might be worth using a more descriptive name here, since "syscon10" is
pretty much meaningless at the board level.
Robin.
Previously I though other bits might be able to reference from syscon10,
other than GPIO_MUTE alone.
If it is renamed to gpio-mute, then the GPIO_MUTE pin is accessed as
`<&gpio-mute 1>`. Yet other
bits in syscon10 can also be referenced, say, `<&gpio-mute 10>`, which is
not good.
I'd like to add a `gpio,syscon-bit` property to gpio-syscon, which overrides
the properties
of bit_count, data_bit_offset and dir_bit_offset in the driver. For
No. Once you are describing individual register bits, it is too low
level for DT.
Okay. So I'll rename it to gpio_mute, and reference the output pin as
<&gpio_mute 1>:
+ // Use <&gpio_mute 1> to ref to GPIO_MUTE pin
+ gpio_mute: gpio-mute {
+ compatible = "rockchip,gpio-syscon";
+ gpio-controller;
+ #gpio-cells = <2>;
+ gpio,syscon-dev = <0 0x0428 0>;
+ };
};
Thanks
Levin
--
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
