[PATCH] ARM: dts: da850-evm: fix tca6416 for use with GPIO hogs

[Sekhar Nori]

On Saturday 03 June 2017 01:57 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar at ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On Wednesday 31 May 2017 06:51 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> In order GPIOS from this controller to be used with the "gpio-hogs"
>>> property, the tca6416 node has to properly labeled as a gpio-controller,
>>> and use #gpio-cells.
>>>
>>> With that, the SEL_A, SEL_B, SEL_C lines that are used to select VPIF
>>> input can be configured using GPIO hogs.
>>>
>>> As an example, example, the configuration below selects the analog video
>>> input on the da850-evm UI board:
>>>
>>> &tca6416 {
>>>        status = "okay";
>>>
>>>        sel_a {
>>>               gpio-hog;
>>>               gpios = <7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>               output-high;
>>>               line-name = "ADC_ENn";
>>>        };
>>>        sel_b {
>>>               gpio-hog;
>>>               gpios = <6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>               output-high;
>>>               line-name = "CAMERA_ENn";
>>>        };
>>>        sel_c {
>>>               gpio-hog;
>>>               gpios = <5 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>               output-low;
>>>               line-name = "VIDEO_IN_ENn";
>>>        };
>>> };
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman at baylibre.com>
>>
>> This patch looks good to me. On the topic of using gpio hogs for this
>> sort of thing, in the past I felt using enable-gpios property is better.
>>
>> My reasoning given to Bartosz is here:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9578031/
> 
> Sure, that's fine when they are used for a specific functionality, but
> using gpio-hog is very useful for testing/debugging, so this patch
> just aims at fixing the basics.

Agreed.

> That being said, I'm still not convinced what the best place for this
> is because they're not really part of the VPIF either (e.g. they
> control the character LCD which has nothing to do with the VPIF.)

Agreed too. And this reminds me that this was discussed earlier.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9586853/

> In any case, I'm not trying to solve that problem in this patch, so
> thanks for the review.

I have now applied the patch to my v4.13/dt branch.

Thanks,
Sekhar