[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 05/11] exynos: dts: Adjust device tree files for U-Boot

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 28 July 2014 21:27, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 06:11:32AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>
>> The pinctrl bindings used by Linux are an incomplete description of the
>> hardware. It is possible in most cases to determine the register address
>> of each, but not in all cases. By adding an additional property we can
>> fix this, and avoid adding a table to U-Boot for every single Exynos
>> SOC.
>
> So here's my fear..
>
> [snip]
>> @@ -49,7 +57,7 @@
>>       i2c at 12ca0000 {
>>               #address-cells = <1>;
>>               #size-cells = <0>;
>> -             compatible = "samsung,s3c2440-i27c";
>> +             compatible = "samsung,s3c2440-i2c";
>>               reg = <0x12CA0000 0x100>;
>>               interrupts = <0 60 0>;
>>       };
>
> Except for the above (what's going on? pulling in a typo fix from
> upstream?) they're legal "regular" non-U-Boot-prefixed changes.  Are
> they going back into the master copy in Linux?

Oops I missed this email. The typo is just my mistake - we don't need
this change and the typo is in the previous patch.

>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi
>> index b3e63d1..df31f37 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/exynos5420-pinctrl.dtsi
>> @@ -13,6 +13,18 @@
>>  */
>>
>>  / {
>> +     /* Replicate the ordering of arch/arm/include/asm/arch-exynos/gpio.h */
>> +     pinctrl at 14010000 {
>> +     };
>> +     pinctrl at 13400000 {
>> +     };
>> +     pinctrl at 13410000 {
>> +     };
>> +     pinctrl at 14000000 {
>> +     };
>> +     pinctrl at 03860000 {
>> +     };
>
> So this isn't going to head back to Linux, clearly...
>
> Is there some way we can contain our changes under includes perhaps?

I hope that this one could go away, since the order of GPIOs doesn't
ultimately matter. At present we assume a particular order due to the
numbering of GPIOs. But once we move to named GPIOs in the device tree
we can drop this ordering patch.

In general, yes we could create a new include file for the U-Boot
device tree additions.

We might be able to send these up to the kernel as they are pretty
harmless and do describe the hardware. Perhaps the kernel people will
push back on the basis that they are unnecessary for the kernel. I'm
not sure. What do you think?

Regards,
Simon