* Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@xxxxxxxxx> [140512 13:00]:
> >>
> >> + i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
> >> + pinctrl-single,pins = <
> >> + 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3) /* uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
> >> + 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3) /* uart1_rtsn.i2c2_scl */
> >> + >;
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> uart0_pins: pinmux_uart0_pins {
> >> pinctrl-single,pins = <
> >> 0x170 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE0) /* uart0_rxd.uart0_rxd */
> >>
> >> @@ -222,6 +229,15 @@
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> +
> >> +&i2c2 {
> >> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> >> + pinctrl-0 = <&i2c2_pins>;
> >> +
> >> + status = "okay";
> >> + clock-frequency = <100000>;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >
> > If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
> > should be set to status = "disabled" state by default. Then
> > u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
>
> To-date, this is the i2c bus that all capes have placed an at24 eeprom
> for cape identification.
And how many capes actually implement the eeprom cape identification
out of the available capes? :)
Tony
--
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
