From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965577AbeCGUF5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:05:57 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:35633 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965516AbeCGUFy (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:05:54 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvIyBctdGyFQIH8IR/PX6O1A95tLsmGdh8p4qkmo2Bzhofnvb2Ei1Fu8JXgmyv8/hlEvzywig== Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 01:35:43 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Rob Herring Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de, liuwei@actions-semi.com, mp-cs@actions-semi.com, 96boards@ucrobotics.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hzhang@ucrobotics.com, bdong@ucrobotics.com, manivannanece23@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] dt-bindings: gpio: Add gpio nodes for Actions S900 SoC Message-ID: <20180307200543.scpqbh7rb635b7c3@linaro.org> References: <20180302035045.14660-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180302035045.14660-6-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180307195233.bstixvrmwo4ozino@rob-hp-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180307195233.bstixvrmwo4ozino@rob-hp-laptop> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rob, Thanks for the review. On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 01:52:33PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:20:40AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Add gpio nodes for Actions Semi S900 SoC. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/actions,owl-gpio.txt | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/actions,owl-gpio.txt > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/actions,owl-gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/actions,owl-gpio.txt > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..d2939ca6cfaf > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/actions,owl-gpio.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ > > +* Actions Semi OWL GPIO controller bindings > > + > > +The GPIOs are organized as individual banks/ports with variable number > > +of GPIOs. Each bank is represented as an individual GPIO controller. > > + > > +Required properties: > > +- compatible : Should be "actions,s900-gpio" > > +- reg : Address and range of the GPIO controller registers. > > +- gpio-controller : Marks the device node as a GPIO controller. > > +- #gpio-cells : Should be <2>. The first cell is the gpio number > > + and the second cell is used to specify optional > > + parameters. > > +- interrupt-controller : Marks the device node as an interrupt controller. > > +- #interrupt-cells : Specifies the number of cells needed to encode an > > + interrupt. Shall be set to 2. The first cell > > + defines the interrupt number, the second encodes > > + the trigger flags described in > > + bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt > > + > > +Optional properties: > > +- gpio-ranges : Mapping between GPIO and pinctrl > > + > > +Note: Each GPIO port should have an alias correctly numbered in "aliases" > > +node. > > Why? Please don't use aliases for gpios. > Okay. > > + > > +Examples: > > + > > +aliases { > > + gpio0 = &gpioa; > > + gpio1 = &gpiob; > > + gpio2 = &gpioc; > > + gpio3 = &gpiod; > > + gpio4 = &gpioe; > > + gpio5 = &gpiof; > > +}; > > + > > + gpioa: gpioa@e01b0000 { > > Use generic node names (gpio). > Okay. But how about the label? Should it be gpioa... or gpio1... In datasheet, the registers are named from gpioa to gpiof. > > + compatible = "actions,s900-gpio"; > > + reg = <0x0 0xe01b0000 0x0 0x1000>; > > + gpio-controller; > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl 0 0 32>; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > + }; > > + > > + gpiob: gpiob@e01b0000 { > > Ah, but your are duplicating addresses here which you shouldn't do > either. These should be all one node if you can avoid overlapping. > Hmmm. Okay. Then I can use the sub address for all nodes. But having a single node doesn't makes sense here since each bank has its own interrupt domain and somewhat resembles an individual controller. Thanks, Mani > > + compatible = "actions,s900-gpio"; > > + reg = <0x0 0xe01b0000 0x0 0x1000>; > > + gpio-controller; > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl 0 32 32>; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > + }; > > + > > + gpioc: gpioc@e01b0000 { > > + compatible = "actions,s900-gpio"; > > + reg = <0x0 0xe01b0000 0x0 0x1000>; > > + gpio-controller; > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl 0 64 12>; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > + }; > > + > > + gpiod: gpiod@e01b0000 { > > + compatible = "actions,s900-gpio"; > > + reg = <0x0 0xe01b0000 0x0 0x1000>; > > + gpio-controller; > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl 0 76 30>; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > + }; > > + > > + gpioe: gpioe@e01b0000 { > > + compatible = "actions,s900-gpio"; > > + reg = <0x0 0xe01b0000 0x0 0x1000>; > > + gpio-controller; > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl 0 106 32>; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > + }; > > + > > + gpiof: gpiof@e01b0000 { > > + compatible = "actions,s900-gpio"; > > + reg = <0x0 0xe01b0000 0x0 0x1000>; > > + gpio-controller; > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > + gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl 0 138 8>; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > + }; > > -- > > 2.14.1 > >