Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 07:02:21PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 06:26:38PM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > Hi Alexandre,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 04:54:46PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 14/09/2018 11:44:26+0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > > > In order to use GPIO4 as a GPIO, we need to mux it in this mode so let's
> > > > declare a new pinctrl DT node for it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot.dtsi | 5 +++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot.dtsi b/arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot.dtsi
> > > > index 8ce317c..b5c4c74 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot.dtsi
> > > > @@ -182,6 +182,11 @@
> > > > interrupts = <13>;
> > > > #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > > >
> > > > + gpio4: gpio4 {
> > > > + pins = "GPIO_4";
> > > > + function = "gpio";
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > >
> > > For a GPIO, I would do that in the board dts because it is not used
> > > directly in the dtsi.
> > >
> >
> > And the day we've two boards using this pinctrl we move it to a dtsi. Is
> > that the plan?
>
> Hi Quentin
>
> gpio4 appears to be pretty arbitrary. Could a different design use a
> different gpio? It me, this seems like a board property.
>
Right now, I don't see why it couldn't be.
Quentin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
