| Message ID | 1475672732-17111-3-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wednesday 05 October 2016 06:35 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > From: Karl Beldan <kbeldan@baylibre.com> > > Add pins used by the LCD controller and a disabled LCDC node to be > reused in device trees including da850.dtsi. > > Signed-off-by: Karl Beldan <kbeldan@baylibre.com> > [Bartosz: > - added the commit description > - changed the dt node name to a generic one > - added a da850-specific compatible string > - removed the tilcdc,panel node > - moved the pins definitions to da850.dtsi as suggested by > Sekhar Nori (was in: da850-lcdk.dts)] > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ > <&edma0 0 1>; > dma-names = "tx", "rx"; > }; > + > + display: display@213000 { > + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; This should instead be: compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; as the closest match should appear first in the list. > + reg = <0x213000 0x1000>; > + interrupt-parent = <&intc> No need of specifying the interrupt-parent as it is assumed to be that from the parent node (soc) if left unspecified. I made these two fixes locally and pushed the two patches in this series to v4.10/dt branch of my tree (for URL see MAINTAINERS). Can you take a look and make sure I did not mess anything up? Regards, Sekhar
2016-10-15 19:42 GMT+02:00 Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>: > On Wednesday 05 October 2016 06:35 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> From: Karl Beldan <kbeldan@baylibre.com> >> >> Add pins used by the LCD controller and a disabled LCDC node to be >> reused in device trees including da850.dtsi. >> >> Signed-off-by: Karl Beldan <kbeldan@baylibre.com> >> [Bartosz: >> - added the commit description >> - changed the dt node name to a generic one >> - added a da850-specific compatible string >> - removed the tilcdc,panel node >> - moved the pins definitions to da850.dtsi as suggested by >> Sekhar Nori (was in: da850-lcdk.dts)] >> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >> <&edma0 0 1>; >> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >> }; >> + >> + display: display@213000 { >> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; > > This should instead be: > > compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; > > as the closest match should appear first in the list. > >> + reg = <0x213000 0x1000>; >> + interrupt-parent = <&intc> > > No need of specifying the interrupt-parent as it is assumed to be that > from the parent node (soc) if left unspecified. > > I made these two fixes locally and pushed the two patches in this series > to v4.10/dt branch of my tree (for URL see MAINTAINERS). Can you take a > look and make sure I did not mess anything up? > Looks good, thanks! Bartosz Golaszewski
On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >> <&edma0 0 1>; >> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >> }; >> + >> + display: display@213000 { >> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; > > This should instead be: > > compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; > > as the closest match should appear first in the list. Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just "ti,da850-tilcdc". Tomi
On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >> >>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>> }; >>> + >>> + display: display@213000 { >>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >> >> This should instead be: >> >> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >> >> as the closest match should appear first in the list. > > Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not > compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just > "ti,da850-tilcdc". So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? Thanks, Sekhar
2016-10-17 9:12 GMT+02:00 Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>: > On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> >>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>>> }; >>>> + >>>> + display: display@213000 { >>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >>> >>> This should instead be: >>> >>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >>> >>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. >> >> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not >> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just >> "ti,da850-tilcdc". > > So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats > the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? > DA850 uses revision 1 of the IP while am33xx is equipped with rev 2. The driver reads the appropriate register, detects the revision and sets the corresponding field in struct tilcdc_drm_private in tilcdc_load(). Thanks, Bartosz
On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote: > On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>> >>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>>> }; >>>> + >>>> + display: display@213000 { >>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >>> >>> This should instead be: >>> >>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >>> >>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. >> >> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not >> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just >> "ti,da850-tilcdc". > > So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats > the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite similar, but different. The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the functionality (as long as it matches). But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level. Tomi
Hello, On Monday 17 Oct 2016 10:33:58 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>>>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>>>> }; >>>>> + >>>>> + display: display@213000 { >>>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >>>> >>>> This should instead be: >>>> >>>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >>>> >>>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. >>> >>> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not >>> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just >>> "ti,da850-tilcdc". >> >> So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats >> the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? > > AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite > similar, but different. > > The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based > on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the > functionality (as long as it matches). > > But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think > "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level. If the hardware provides IP revision information, how about just "ti,lcdc" ?
On 17/10/16 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hello, > > On Monday 17 Oct 2016 10:33:58 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>> On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>>> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>>>>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>>>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + display: display@213000 { >>>>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >>>>> >>>>> This should instead be: >>>>> >>>>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >>>>> >>>>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. >>>> >>>> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not >>>> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just >>>> "ti,da850-tilcdc". >>> >>> So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats >>> the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? >> >> AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite >> similar, but different. >> >> The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based >> on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the >> functionality (as long as it matches). >> >> But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think >> "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level. > > If the hardware provides IP revision information, how about just "ti,lcdc" ? Maybe, and I agree that's the "correct" way, but looking at the history, it's not just once or twice when we've suddenly found out some difference or bug or such in an IP revision, or the integration to a SoC, that can't be found based on the IP revision. That's why I feel it's usually safer to have the SoC revision there in the compatible string. That said, we have only a few different old SoCs with LCDC (compared to, say, OMAP DSS) so in this case perhaps just "ti,lcdc" would be fine. Tomi
Hi Tomi, On Monday 17 Oct 2016 15:29:23 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 17/10/16 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Monday 17 Oct 2016 10:33:58 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote: > >>> On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >>>> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: > >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >>>>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi > >>>>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ > >>>>>> <&edma0 0 1>; > >>>>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; > >>>>>> }; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + display: display@213000 { > >>>>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850- tilcdc"; > >>>>> > >>>>> This should instead be: > >>>>> > >>>>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; > >>>>> > >>>>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. > >>>> > >>>> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not > >>>> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just > >>>> "ti,da850-tilcdc". > >>> > >>> So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats > >>> the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? > >> > >> AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite > >> similar, but different. > >> > >> The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based > >> on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the > >> functionality (as long as it matches). > >> > >> But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think > >> "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level. > > > > If the hardware provides IP revision information, how about just "ti,lcdc" > > ? > > Maybe, and I agree that's the "correct" way, but looking at the history, > it's not just once or twice when we've suddenly found out some > difference or bug or such in an IP revision, or the integration to a > SoC, that can't be found based on the IP revision. > > That's why I feel it's usually safer to have the SoC revision there in > the compatible string. > > That said, we have only a few different old SoCs with LCDC (compared to, > say, OMAP DSS) so in this case perhaps just "ti,lcdc" would be fine. You obviously know more than I do on this topic so I'll trust your opinion. If the version register isn't enough I'm fine with multiple compatible strings.
2016-10-17 14:29 GMT+02:00 Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>: > On 17/10/16 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Monday 17 Oct 2016 10:33:58 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>> On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>>>> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>>>>>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>>>>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + display: display@213000 { >>>>>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >>>>>> >>>>>> This should instead be: >>>>>> >>>>>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >>>>>> >>>>>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. >>>>> >>>>> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not >>>>> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just >>>>> "ti,da850-tilcdc". >>>> >>>> So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats >>>> the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? >>> >>> AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite >>> similar, but different. >>> >>> The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based >>> on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the >>> functionality (as long as it matches). >>> >>> But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think >>> "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level. >> >> If the hardware provides IP revision information, how about just "ti,lcdc" ? > > Maybe, and I agree that's the "correct" way, but looking at the history, > it's not just once or twice when we've suddenly found out some > difference or bug or such in an IP revision, or the integration to a > SoC, that can't be found based on the IP revision. > > That's why I feel it's usually safer to have the SoC revision there in > the compatible string. > > That said, we have only a few different old SoCs with LCDC (compared to, > say, OMAP DSS) so in this case perhaps just "ti,lcdc" would be fine. > > Tomi > I Sekhar is ok with this, I'll send a follow-up patch for that. Thanks, Bartosz
On Monday 17 October 2016 07:31 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2016-10-17 14:29 GMT+02:00 Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>: >> On 17/10/16 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Monday 17 Oct 2016 10:33:58 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>>> On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>> On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>>>>> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>>>>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ >>>>>>>> <&edma0 0 1>; >>>>>>>> dma-names = "tx", "rx"; >>>>>>>> }; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + display: display@213000 { >>>>>>>> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This should instead be: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc"; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as the closest match should appear first in the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not >>>>>> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just >>>>>> "ti,da850-tilcdc". >>>>> >>>>> So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats >>>>> the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz? >>>> >>>> AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite >>>> similar, but different. >>>> >>>> The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based >>>> on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the >>>> functionality (as long as it matches). >>>> >>>> But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think >>>> "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level. >>> >>> If the hardware provides IP revision information, how about just "ti,lcdc" ? >> >> Maybe, and I agree that's the "correct" way, but looking at the history, >> it's not just once or twice when we've suddenly found out some >> difference or bug or such in an IP revision, or the integration to a >> SoC, that can't be found based on the IP revision. >> >> That's why I feel it's usually safer to have the SoC revision there in >> the compatible string. I agree with Tomi here. Lets keep the soc part number in the compatible string. More often than not, some undocumented, undiscovered issue pops up over time. Its much safer to have the SoC revision in there. >> >> That said, we have only a few different old SoCs with LCDC (compared to, >> say, OMAP DSS) so in this case perhaps just "ti,lcdc" would be fine. >> >> Tomi >> > > I Sekhar is ok with this, I'll send a follow-up patch for that. Per me, compatible property is an ordered list precisely for the reason that things should continue to "work" with as closely matched driver as possible. So even if someone is running a kernel which does not recognize "ti,da850-tilcdc", it should still be able to probe the driver based on "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and provide as close to full functionality as possible. That said, I will not insist on keeping it around if Tomi is uncomfortable. And having read the binding documentation accepted by Jyri, it actually says the compatible property should be __one of__ "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" or "ti,da850-tilcdc". Thanks, Sekhar
On 20/10/16 13:07, Sekhar Nori wrote: > Per me, compatible property is an ordered list precisely for the reason > that things should continue to "work" with as closely matched driver as > possible. So even if someone is running a kernel which does not > recognize "ti,da850-tilcdc", it should still be able to probe the driver > based on "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and provide as close to full functionality > as possible. > > That said, I will not insist on keeping it around if Tomi is > uncomfortable. And having read the binding documentation accepted by > Jyri, it actually says the compatible property should be __one of__ > "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" or "ti,da850-tilcdc". Well, they are just not compatible as far as I know. If the LCDC on DA850 would be identified as AM335x LCDC, and used as such, it would not work at all. They have different registers, AM335x LCDC has registers that do not exist on DA850. With our driver it happens to work, because the driver looks at the IP revision in the registers, and then decides that this IP is not AM335x LCDC even if the dts says so. But I see that as a driver "feature", nothing that the .dts can depend on. Perhaps it might work the other way around, using DA850 driver on AM335x, as DA850 LCDC is a kind of subset of AM335x LCDC. But I'm not sure even about that. Tomi
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi @@ -186,6 +186,27 @@ 0xc 0x88888888 0xffffffff >; }; + lcd_pins: pinmux_lcd_pins { + pinctrl-single,bits = < + /* + * LCD_D[2], LCD_D[3], LCD_D[4], LCD_D[5], + * LCD_D[6], LCD_D[7] + */ + 0x40 0x22222200 0xffffff00 + /* + * LCD_D[10], LCD_D[11], LCD_D[12], LCD_D[13], + * LCD_D[14], LCD_D[15], LCD_D[0], LCD_D[1] + */ + 0x44 0x22222222 0xffffffff + /* LCD_D[8], LCD_D[9] */ + 0x48 0x00000022 0x000000ff + + /* LCD_PCLK */ + 0x48 0x02000000 0x0f000000 + /* LCD_AC_ENB_CS, LCD_VSYNC, LCD_HSYNC */ + 0x4c 0x02000022 0x0f0000ff + >; + }; }; edma0: edma@0 { @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@ <&edma0 0 1>; dma-names = "tx", "rx"; }; + + display: display@213000 { + compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc"; + reg = <0x213000 0x1000>; + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; + interrupts = <52>; + status = "disabled"; + }; }; aemif: aemif@68000000 { compatible = "ti,da850-aemif";