[PATCH 02/21] ARM: tegra: Add gpio-ranges property
swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Tue Jun 2 08:40:33 PDT 2015
On 06/02/2015 05:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2015 08:53 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> Specify how the GPIOs map to the pins in T124, so the dependency is
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> index 13cc7ca..5d1d35f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124.dtsi
>>> @@ -254,6 +254,7 @@
>>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>> + gpio-ranges = <&pinmux 0 0 250>;
>> We should be consistent between SoCs. Why not make the same change for all
>> Tegra SoCs?
>> I think this change will cause the GPIO subsystem to call into the pinctrl
>> subsystem and create/add/register a new GPIO<->pinctrl range structure. The
>> pinctrl driver already does this, so I think we'll end up with two duplicate
>> entries in the pinctrl device's gpio_ranges list. This probably won't cause
>> a problem, but I wanted to make sure you'd thought about it to make sure.
> That sounds like duplication indeed, I would expect that first a patch
> adds the ranges to the dts[i] files and then a second patch delete the
> same ranges from the pinctrl driver then, if these shall come in from
> the device tree.
We can't delete the gpio-range-registration code from the Tegra pinmux
driver, or old DTs won't work correctly. We could make it conditional
based upon whether the DT contains the property or not.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel