On 11/06/2012 12:41 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Russ Dill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> * Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [121106 03:16]:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>>> <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Another can of worms is the pinctrl nodes.
>>>>
>>>> Yes... new pinctrl data would need to trigger adding new data to
>>>> pinctrl. I don't know if the pinctrl api supports that.
>>>
>>> The actual pins stay the same, just their configuration
>>> changes. AFAIK all that is already supported using the
>>> pinctrl framework.
>>>
>>> For example, considering hotplugging capes on the beaglebone:
...
>> That assumes that for a particular external bus, certain pins aren't
>> already shared with functions already on the board, for instance if an
>> I²C bus brought out to the external bus already has a chip connected
>> to it.
>
> This is our case on the bone. We don't enable the peripheral until
> a cape that references it is enabled.
>
> I don't think that very big changes are going to be needed TBH.
...
> Ideally if we could do this in the cape definition:
>
> cape_pinmux {
> parent = <&am3358_pinmux>;
I think the cape overlay would simply add nodes to the existing pin
controller node, so I'd presume you would replace the two lines
immediately above with:
am3358_pinmux: pinmux {
>
> bone_dvi_cape_led_pins: pinmux_bone_dvi_cape_led_pins {
> pinctrl-single,pins = <
> 0x48 0x07 /* gpmc_a2.gpio1_18, OUTPUT | MODE7 */
> 0x4c 0x07 /* gpmc_a3.gpio1_19, OUTPUT | MODE7 */
> >;
> };
>
> pinctrl-0 = <&bone_geiger_cape_pins>;
--
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
