[PATCH] ARM: dts: am335x-bone* enable pmic-shutdown-controller

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Hi Tony,

> On May 18, 2015, at 20:03 , Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> 
> * Robert Nelson <robertcnelson at gmail.com> [150518 09:51]:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
>>> * Robert Nelson <robertcnelson at gmail.com> [150518 09:15]:
>>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> All the rev information is in the board's eeprom:
>>>> 
>>>> hexdump -e '8/1 "%c"' /sys/bus/i2c/devices/0-0050/eeprom -s 12 -n 4
>>>> 
>>>> Rev A5B
>>>> 0A5B
>>>> 
>>>> Rev C
>>>> 000C
>>>> 
>>>> Just another default qwerk to add to Pantelis' bone_capemgr. ;)
>>> 
>>> It seems we should not even instantiate some devices on BBB
>>> until the EEPROM is parsed.. So maybe something like this:
>>> 
>>> 1. The problem devices are initially set with status = "disabled"
>>>   in the dts
>>> 
>>> 2. We set up drivers/*/bbb-eeprom.c that parses the board
>>>   revision at module_init time, and then flips the selected
>>>   devices to have status = "enabled" and populates the revision
>>>   info based on the eeprom and SoC revision passed in pdata.
>>>   Then those devices get their struct device created and
>>>   probed, but at a much later time.
>>> 
>>> So rather than trying to init all that early, let's just
>>> init them much later when we have the proper I2C driver
>>> running?
>> 
>> I see that working just fine.  We (beagleboard.org) enforce the eeprom
>> data, as all the official images require a proper baseboard eeprom.
> 
> OK
> 
>> We just have to be very careful to limit the scope, otherwise we will
>> end up with Pantelis' rejected capebus from the v3.2.x days...
> 
> Naturally I was thinking #2 above would use Pantelis' code for
> CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY in mainline. But instead of the earlier patches,
> we can make things happen much later on to avoid the detect of
> EEPROM early on.
> 


Already been taken care of:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/18/258

The patchset works, but it still needs some review eyeballs.
There might be a rename to variants or something.

You were part of that thread too :)

I think it’s best if we go this path instead of twiddling with the
status properties manually. Conceptually the idea is similar to
the detection of the white/black, with the added joy of revision
detection.

Ain’t hardware designers a fun bunch or what?

> Regards,
> 
> Tony

Regards

— Pantelis