On 06/18/2014 06:19 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
[...]
Add support for TI's AM437x StarterKit Evaluation
Module.
is there a link for this platform?
internal only
but will eventually be sold externally? I assume this is not an TI
probably, but there's nothing public yet.
internal only board.
correct assumption for all I know.
Yikes.. ok.. I'd let Tony et.al make the call on this, I guess.
[...]
+ edt-ft5306@38 {
+ status = "okay";
+ compatible = "edt,edt-ft5306", "edt,edt-ft5x06";
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&edt_ft5306_ts_pins>;
+ reg = <0x38>;
+ interrupt-parent = <&gpio0>;
+ interrupts = <31 0>;
+
+ wake-gpios = <&gpio1 28 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
why wake-gpios? we should be using pinctrl with interrupt-extended to
do wakeup sequence, no?
sure, can you patch the edt driver ? I'll fix the DTS after that gets
merged
If you really want to go down that road, so you could probably help
review the pinctrl patches I posted to enable pinctrl wakeup[1]?
Come on, as of today, there is no ability to suspend AM437x without
doing [1], let alone talk about wakeup gpio vs interrupt-extended. and
do we really want to wakeup from suspend when touch screen is touched?
Do you expect wake-gpio to work even after doing interrupt based
solution? I am no edt driver expert... maybe you can help me here.
you missed the point entirely. This pin is not used for the touchscreen
to wake SoC up, it's the other way around, see how the pin is an
*output*. Pull it low and the touchscreen won't generate IRQs, won't
respond to i2c accesses, etc. Pull it high, and the thing wakes up.
Aaah.. My apologies.. I was confused. Thanks for clarifying.
[...]
+ cd-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
+};
+
+&usb2_phy1 {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
+&usb1 {
+ dr_mode = "peripheral";
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
+&usb2_phy2 {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
+&usb2 {
+ dr_mode = "host";
+ status = "okay";
+};
none of the above need pinctrl? no regulator supplies?
pins in default states, drivers don't use regulators.
USB works without a supply? even a fixed voltage supply? that is
weird.
take a look at the minicom output I posted if you don't believe. Well,
to be exact, tps63010 [1] is the one which generates the regulated V5_0D
which is used as VBUS_USB. The enable pin in that device is tied to the
3v3 rail (dcdc4 regulator in the PMIC as most everything else) but
there's no way (otherwise) to control that thing. There's no control
bus, no way to write a driver.
Since the board will anyways turn off if you disable the 3v3 rail, it's
pretty much pointless to figure out a hack just to add this to DTS.
[1] http://www.ti.com/product/TPS63010
I am sure to trust you on the test log :) -> but then from dts
description perspective, it is good if we describe the supplies, even as
a always on fixed-regulator. We had instances like 2430SDP ethernet
where... umm... we originally missed describing ethernet supply and
boom, one fine morning, no more nfs filesystem - I mean, it is a one off
scenario there, but describing regulators helps us atleast understand
the power tree of the board a little better.
Again, no strong opinions on my side, it is a good thing to do is all I
feel about it.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
