On 03/17/2016 10:03 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:51:58PM -0600, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>> Now that the node name has been changed from ehrpwm to pwm the document
>> should show this proper usage. Also change the unit address in the example
>> from 0 to the proper physical address value that should be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
>> index 9c100b2..20211ed 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
>> @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ Optional properties:
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> -ehrpwm0: ehrpwm@0 { /* EHRPWM on am33xx */
>> +ehrpwm0: pwm@48300200 { /* EHRPWM on am33xx */
>> compatible = "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
>> #pwm-cells = <3>;
>> reg = <0x48300200 0x100>;
>> ti,hwmods = "ehrpwm0";
>> };
>>
>> -ehrpwm0: ehrpwm@0 { /* EHRPWM on da850 */
>> +ehrpwm0: pwm@01f00000 { /* EHRPWM on da850 */
> No leading 0s, but more importantly the address is wrong.
I will remove the leading 0. However, this value was taken
from the .dtsi and I just double checked and I see the same
value in the datasheet. I believe DA850,OMAP-L138 and AM18x
all have the same memory mapping. I'm looking at
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/am1808.pdf page 233 and the
addresses match up what is seen here and in the .dtsi.
Can you point me to which document your looking at that
shows a different value?
>
>> compatible = "ti,da850-ehrpwm", "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
>> #pwm-cells = <3>;
>> reg = <0x300000 0x2000>;
>> --
>> 2.7.0
>>
--
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
