Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic

From	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic
Date	2017-02-20 15:00 +0100
Message-ID	<tcWFs-5o2-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <t3AXv-5pP-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5qU1-4V-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5E0W-81e-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5GvN-19j-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <t90HD-yG-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote:

> I was thinking that instead of having one pinctrl-ingenic instance covering
> 0x600 of register space, and 6 instances of gpio-ingenic having 0x100 each,
> I could just have 6 instances of pinctrl-ingenic, each one with an instance
> of gpio-ingenic declared as a sub-node, each handling just 0x100 of memory
> space.

My head is spinning,  but I think I get it. What is wrong with the solution
I proposed with one pin control instance covering the whole 0x600 and with 6
subnodes of GPIO?

The GPIO nodes do not even have to have an address range associated with
them you know, that can be distributed out with regmap code accessing
the parent regmap.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2017-02-20 15:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document  pinctrl-ingenic Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> - 2017-02-21 12:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2017-02-23 11:00 +0100

csiph-web