Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1436504
| From | Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual |
| Date | 2016-07-04 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rRgDo-vJ-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rQCZj-1uM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRdYR-7jy-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 07/04/16 08:22, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote: > >> This is an extremely simple example to illustrate the concepts. It is not >> meant to represent the complexity of a real board. >> >> To start with, assume that the device that will eventually be on a daughter >> board is first soldered onto the mother board. The mother board contains >> two devices connected via bus spi_1. One device is described in the .dts >> file, the other is described in an included .dtsi file. >> Then the device tree files will look like: > > Can I suggest not using SPI as an example here? It's particularly > messy since addresses are essentially just a random signal that can be > totally separate to the controller hardware which might be adding more > complexity early on in building up your model than is really desirable. > It will need to be dealt with but perhaps not right now. I2C might be > easier. > > The initial issue with SPI is that you really need to do something like > bring out individual slots on the bus rather than the bus as a whole > since you're going to need a remapping layer to map chip selects on the > module to chip selects on the host board. > Yes, thank you for pointing that out. For the purposes of the mental model, when thinking about what I wrote, just change SPI to I2C everywhere. -Frank
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual frowand.list@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 02:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 08:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-07-04 17:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> - 2016-07-05 20:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 19:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> - 2016-07-08 02:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com> - 2016-07-08 09:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> - 2016-07-08 09:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 21:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 21:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 21:30 +0200
csiph-web