ARM: dts: imx25: Add #pwm-cells to pwm4
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/2 ARM: dts: imx25: Add #pwm-cells to pwm4
The property '#pwm-cells' is currently missing. It is not possible to use pwm4 without this property.
--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25.dtsi | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25.dtsi +1 -0
@@ -428,6 +428,7 @@ pwm4: pwm at 53fc8000 { compatible = "fsl,imx25-pwm", "fsl,imx27-pwm"; + #pwm-cells = <2>; reg = <0x53fc8000 0x4000>; clocks = <&clks 108>, <&clks 52>; clock-names = "ipg", "per";
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 2/2 ARM: dts: imx25-karo-tx25: Fix pincontrol definition
The iomux group nodes have to be in a pinmux category as described in the devicetree binding documentation example. The current definitions are not parsed by imx25-pinctrl.
--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts | 84 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts +45 -39
@@ -42,49 +42,55 @@ }; &iomuxc { - pinctrl_uart1: uart1grp { - fsl,pins = < - MX25_PAD_UART1_TXD__UART1_TXD 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_RXD__UART1_RXD 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_CTS__UART1_CTS 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_RTS__UART1_RTS 0x80000000 - >; + uart1 { + pinctrl_uart1: uart1grp { + fsl,pins = < + MX25_PAD_UART1_TXD__UART1_TXD 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_UART1_RXD__UART1_RXD 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_UART1_CTS__UART1_CTS 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_UART1_RTS__UART1_RTS 0x80000000 + >; + }; }; - pinctrl_fec: fecgrp { - fsl,pins = < - MX25_PAD_D11__GPIO_4_9 0x80000000 /* FEC PHY power on pin */ - MX25_PAD_D13__GPIO_4_7 0x80000000 /* FEC reset */ - MX25_PAD_FEC_MDC__FEC_MDC 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_MDIO__FEC_MDIO 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_TDATA0__FEC_TDATA0 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_TDATA1__FEC_TDATA1 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_TX_EN__FEC_TX_EN 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_RDATA0__FEC_RDATA0 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_RDATA1__FEC_RDATA1 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_RX_DV__FEC_RX_DV 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_FEC_TX_CLK__FEC_TX_CLK 0x80000000 - >; + fec { + pinctrl_fec: fecgrp { + fsl,pins = < + MX25_PAD_D11__GPIO_4_9 0x80000000 /* FEC PHY power on pin */ + MX25_PAD_D13__GPIO_4_7 0x80000000 /* FEC reset */ + MX25_PAD_FEC_MDC__FEC_MDC 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_MDIO__FEC_MDIO 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_TDATA0__FEC_TDATA0 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_TDATA1__FEC_TDATA1 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_TX_EN__FEC_TX_EN 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_RDATA0__FEC_RDATA0 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_RDATA1__FEC_RDATA1 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_RX_DV__FEC_RX_DV 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_FEC_TX_CLK__FEC_TX_CLK 0x80000000 + >; + }; }; - pinctrl_nfc: nfcgrp { - fsl,pins = < - MX25_PAD_NF_CE0__NF_CE0 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_NFWE_B__NFWE_B 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_NFRE_B__NFRE_B 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_NFALE__NFALE 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_NFCLE__NFCLE 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_NFWP_B__NFWP_B 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_NFRB__NFRB 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D7__D7 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D6__D6 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D5__D5 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D4__D4 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D3__D3 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D2__D2 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D1__D1 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_D0__D0 0x80000000 - >; + nfc { + pinctrl_nfc: nfcgrp { + fsl,pins = < + MX25_PAD_NF_CE0__NF_CE0 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_NFWE_B__NFWE_B 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_NFRE_B__NFRE_B 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_NFALE__NFALE 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_NFCLE__NFCLE 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_NFWP_B__NFWP_B 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_NFRB__NFRB 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D7__D7 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D6__D6 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D5__D5 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D4__D4 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D3__D3 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D2__D2 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D1__D1 0x80000000 + MX25_PAD_D0__D0 0x80000000 + >; + }; }; };
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 2/2 ARM: dts: imx25-karo-tx25: Fix pincontrol definition
Hello,
[Cc += Lothar Wa?mann]
Quoted 3 lines · Markus Pargmann
The iomux group nodes have to be in a pinmux category as described in the devicetree binding documentation example. The current definitions are not parsed by imx25-pinctrl.
I remember having noticed that problem, too, some time ago, but forgot to fix/report it.
Quoted 11 lines
Signed-off-by Markus Pargmann <[email protected]>--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts | 84 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts +0
-0@@ -42,49 +42,55 @@ };
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts line 45
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts +1
-7&iomuxc { - pinctrl_uart1: uart1grp { - fsl,pins = < - MX25_PAD_UART1_TXD__UART1_TXD 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_RXD__UART1_RXD 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_CTS__UART1_CTS 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_RTS__UART1_RTS 0x80000000 - >; + uart1 {
Some other machines (e.g. imx51-babbage) use a big group named after the machine for all pin groups. Would it be nice to have a uniform rule here?
I think this grouping is a relict from the time when we considered to list the groups in the imx$num.dtsi? I would prefer to "fix" the driver to work with the way imx25-karo-tx25 presents the pinmuxing because I don't see the motivation for this extra grouping. (So let us define the current method of imx25-karo-tx25 as the good one to follow if you ask me.)
Best regards
Uwe
Signature · 2 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
PATCH 2/2 ARM: dts: imx25-karo-tx25: Fix pincontrol definition
Hi,
Quoted 23 lines · Uwe Kleine-K?nig
Hello,
[Cc += Lothar Wa?mann]
Quoted 3 lines · Markus Pargmann
The iomux group nodes have to be in a pinmux category as described in the devicetree binding documentation example. The current definitions are not parsed by imx25-pinctrl.
I remember having noticed that problem, too, some time ago, but forgot to fix/report it.
Quoted 12 lines
Signed-off-by Markus Pargmann <[email protected]>--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts | 84 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts +0
-0@@ -42,49 +42,55 @@ };
Quoted 12 lines
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts line 45
Quoted 9 lines
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx25-karo-tx25.dts +1
-7&iomuxc { - pinctrl_uart1: uart1grp { - fsl,pins = < - MX25_PAD_UART1_TXD__UART1_TXD 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_RXD__UART1_RXD 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_CTS__UART1_CTS 0x80000000 - MX25_PAD_UART1_RTS__UART1_RTS 0x80000000 - >; + uart1 {Some other machines (e.g. imx51-babbage) use a big group named after the machine for all pin groups. Would it be nice to have a uniform rule here?
Oh yes, the majority seems to use this naming scheme now. I will change it.
Quoted 7 lines
I think this grouping is a relict from the time when we considered to list the groups in the imx$num.dtsi? I would prefer to "fix" the driver to work with the way imx25-karo-tx25 presents the pinmuxing because I don't see the motivation for this extra grouping. (So let us define the current method of imx25-karo-tx25 as the good one to follow if you ask me.)
But the binding for the pinctrl unit is already defined. I am not sure about the policy for changing devicetree bindings. I thought it should be avoided?
Best regards,
Markus
Signature · 11 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150325/dab5eec7/attachment.sig>
PATCH 2/2 ARM: dts: imx25-karo-tx25: Fix pincontrol definition
Hello Markus,
Quoted 11 lines · Markus Pargmann
Quoted 6 lines · Uwe Kleine-K?nig
I think this grouping is a relict from the time when we considered to list the groups in the imx$num.dtsi? I would prefer to "fix" the driver to work with the way imx25-karo-tx25 presents the pinmuxing because I don't see the motivation for this extra grouping. (So let us define the current method of imx25-karo-tx25 as the good one to follow if you ask me.)
But the binding for the pinctrl unit is already defined. I am not sure about the policy for changing devicetree bindings. I thought it should be avoided?
Allowing more valid definitions shouldn't be a problem, should it? So don't rip out parsing groups within a namespace, just complement it with support for namespace-less groups
Best regards
Uwe
Signature · 2 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
PATCH 2/2 ARM: dts: imx25-karo-tx25: Fix pincontrol definition
Hi,
Quoted 11 lines · Uwe Kleine-K?nig
Hello Markus,
Quoted 8 lines · Markus Pargmann
Quoted 6 lines · Uwe Kleine-K?nig
I think this grouping is a relict from the time when we considered to list the groups in the imx$num.dtsi? I would prefer to "fix" the driver to work with the way imx25-karo-tx25 presents the pinmuxing because I don't see the motivation for this extra grouping. (So let us define the current method of imx25-karo-tx25 as the good one to follow if you ask me.)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
But the binding for the pinctrl unit is already defined. I am not sure about the policy for changing devicetree bindings. I thought it should be avoided?
Allowing more valid definitions shouldn't be a problem, should it? So don't rip out parsing groups within a namespace, just complement it with support for namespace-less groups
I have posted a patch that allows parsing the pinctrl device node without 'function' device nodes. So this patch can be dropped for the moment.
Best Regards,
Markus
Signature · 11 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150329/77f56a13/attachment.sig>