From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: da850: Add node for pullup/pulldown pinconf Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:33:38 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1479871767-20160-1-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com> <1479871767-20160-4-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com> <8c3e6535-4b79-9731-f801-c13f007e48ab@ti.com> <06bc8517-8c33-85a1-9d5a-29042c7281db@lechnology.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <06bc8517-8c33-85a1-9d5a-29042c7281db@lechnology.com> (David Lechner's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:24:06 -0600") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Lechner Cc: Sekhar Nori , Linus Walleij , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Axel Haslam , Alexandre Bailon , Bartosz =?utf-8?Q?Go=C5=82aszewski?= List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org David Lechner writes: > On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote: >>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown >>> bias on groups of pins. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ >>> }; >>> >>> }; >>> + pinconf: pin-controller@22c00c { >>> + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; >>> + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; >>> + status = "disabled"; >>> + }; >> >> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the >> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today, >> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up. > > I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here > is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart > are together, etc.) > > Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this > cleaned up be acceptable? No thanks. That kind of thing is the needless churn that gets us flamed. Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:33:38 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: da850: Add node for pullup/pulldown pinconf In-Reply-To: <06bc8517-8c33-85a1-9d5a-29042c7281db@lechnology.com> (David Lechner's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:24:06 -0600") References: <1479871767-20160-1-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com> <1479871767-20160-4-git-send-email-david@lechnology.com> <8c3e6535-4b79-9731-f801-c13f007e48ab@ti.com> <06bc8517-8c33-85a1-9d5a-29042c7281db@lechnology.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org David Lechner writes: > On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote: >>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown >>> bias on groups of pins. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ >>> }; >>> >>> }; >>> + pinconf: pin-controller at 22c00c { >>> + compatible = "ti,da850-pupd"; >>> + reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>; >>> + status = "disabled"; >>> + }; >> >> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the >> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today, >> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up. > > I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here > is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart > are together, etc.) > > Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this > cleaned up be acceptable? No thanks. That kind of thing is the needless churn that gets us flamed. Kevin