On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:27 PM Kumar, Udit <u-kumar1@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Nishanth,
>
> On 6/6/2023 2:19 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 22:31-20230605, Kumar, Udit wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-beagleboneai64.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-beagleboneai64.dts
> >>> index 37c24b077b6a..c13246a9ed8f 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-beagleboneai64.dts
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-beagleboneai64.dts
> > [...]
> >>> @@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ &main_i2c6 {
> >>> &wkup_i2c0 {
> >>> status = "okay";
> >>> pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>> - pinctrl-0 = <&wkup_i2c0_pins_default &eeprom_wp_pins_default>;
> >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&wkup_i2c0_pins_default>, <&eeprom_wp_pins_default>;
> >>> clock-frequency = <400000>;
> >> Why we need more than 2 pio lines for i2c node ,
> > pio lines? I am not sure I understand. If you are suggesting
> > eeprom_wp_pins to be moved to the eeprom node, It is probably
> > un-related to this series, but OK, i think it is probably a valid
> > change (unless Robert sees a reason why he did it the way he did).
>
> correct, I am suggesting to move eeprom_wp_pins_default to eeprom node.
>
> i2c needs 2 lines which are defined in wkup_i2c0_pins_default, Adding
> eeprom_wp_pins_default will not be true representation of i2c node.
>
> It will be good to have similar changes in main_i2c1 and main_i2c5 node
> for csi0_gpio_pins_default and csi1_gpio_pins_default.
I agree, moving eeprom_wp_pins_default into the eeprom node itself is
much cleaner going forward.
While we may have a lot of historical situations in the git tree where
we just dumped all pin configurations into the base node, that's not
the best practice going forward today.
Regards,
--
Robert Nelson
https://rcn-ee.com/
