On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, delicious quinoa
<delicious.quinoa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth
> <sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 11/06/13 23:49, Alan Tull wrote:
[snip]
>> BTW, what if we get rid of port child nodes completely and rather
>> use:
>>
>> gpio: gpio-controller@20000 {
>> compatible = "snps,dw-apb-gpio";
>> reg = <0x20000 0x1000>;
>> gpio-controller;
>> #gpio-cells = <2>;
>> interrupt-controller;
>> interrupt-parent = <&vic1>;
>> interrupts = <0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7>;
>> snps,port-widths = <8 8 0 0>;
>> };
>>
>> The only draw-back compared to child-nodes is, that you'll reference
>> gpios with <&gpio 13> instead of <&banka 5>. I have no strong opinion
>> about it, so I leave the correct answer to either LinusW or DT
>> maintainers.
>
> I left this as-is for now.
I generally favor less nodes of things, but I think we discussed this
when originally posted and keeping them seemed to be the right choice.
What if you have sparsely populated banks like this:
snps,port-widths = <4 4 0 0>;
snps,port-widths = <8 0 8 0>;
Also, you would need to define how the interrupts are done. You may
have 1 per port or 1 per gpio line or a mixture if the h/w folks
really hate you.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
