From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mateusz Kulikowski <mateusz.kulikowski@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:01:19 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 16/16] board: Add Qualcomm Dragonboard 410C
	support
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ247MKogXOfSioSb-jUhiOV+QfkgwOcrg8fhRMa98J8yA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1452104488-5502-1-git-send-email-mateusz.kulikowski@gmail.com>
 <1452104488-5502-17-git-send-email-mateusz.kulikowski@gmail.com>
 <CAPnjgZ247MKogXOfSioSb-jUhiOV+QfkgwOcrg8fhRMa98J8yA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5694262F.5060701@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 11.01.2016 17:58, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 6 January 2016 at 11:21, Mateusz Kulikowski
> <mateusz.kulikowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This commit add support for 96Boards Dragonboard410C.
[...]
>> +       usb_hub_reset_n_pm {
>> +               gpios = <&pmic_gpios 2 0>;
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       usb_sw_sel_pm {
>> +               gpios = <&pmic_gpios 3 0>;
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       key_vol_down {
>> +               gpios = <&pmic_pon 1 0>;
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       key_power {
>> +               gpios = <&pmic_pon 0 0>;
>> +       };
> 
> The above four nodes seems odd in that they don't have compatible
> strings. Is this how Linux does it? Also more normally the node name
> has hyphens rather than underscores.

In Linux nodes are childs of PMIC gpio periperhal (pmic_gpios in my case):
&pm8916_gpios {

	usb_hub_reset_pm: usb_hub_reset_pm {
		pinconf {
			pins = "gpio3";
			function = PMIC_GPIO_FUNC_NORMAL;
			output-low;
		};
	};

(https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc-pmic-pins.dtsi)

I decided to move them away from PMIC, as they only use specific gpios.

To be honest they are just a references so I don't have to hardcode gpio names/numbers in 
board sources.

Is it ok if I keep it that way? Could you suggest better approach?

Regards,
Mateusz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWlCYsAAoJELvtohmVtQzBECkH/A5wLQRBfMjnpZubeTpnEfhC
W6M8bOLpjtEPZIHFeoWIblEBoa/M9S0TS1Sx0c/K3E1KwjkfVzs+LiSY/5PTtMqX
82v4qnJSEYtbxtX2WN40Dr+lRdGgHs+h73pHOMoSTGrFsB0sRRDMwurzRDWt2vFc
deirO3Ow6Qyzij2qKjV+28PR9bzHGES0fMXpSACUl/p+3m+hAdbflt12TQOK5f42
t+/O2qwZQg7OGqyANGU3jUjA8uiRiR+2ucvNNkHk2QQvU2TefsbUN1c1Hxz5JgKN
NNnPgwBq0J9+bsdVV8x8cgoTi01uTUX8l2KVUaQHvrGeOic53ulH0DszWz9JXtQ=
=MvsZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----