diff mbox

[v2] arm64: dts: renesas: salvator-common: add GPIO extender

Message ID 20171221122136.17773-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Simon Horman
Headers show

Commit Message

Wolfram Sang Dec. 21, 2017, 12:21 p.m. UTC
We need to configure its GPIOs later.

Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

Comments

Wolfram Sang Dec. 21, 2017, 12:24 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:21:36PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> We need to configure its GPIOs later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> ---

Forgot to say, this depends on 8a64e557f399090f5d1917b2f32a065da2b12be1
("gpio: pca953x: fix vendor prefix for PCA9654") which is in
gpio/for-next already. I cherry-picked this commit and SATA still works.

>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
> index a298df74ca6c03..ab4763f09dc7fd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
> @@ -338,6 +338,11 @@
>  &i2c4 {
>  	status = "okay";
>  
> +	pca9654: gpio@20 {
> +		compatible = "onnn,pca9654";
> +		reg = <0x20>;
> +	};
> +
>  	csa_vdd: adc@7c {
>  		compatible = "maxim,max9611";
>  		reg = <0x7c>;
> -- 
> 2.11.0
>
Sergei Shtylyov Dec. 21, 2017, 12:33 p.m. UTC | #2
On 12/21/2017 03:24 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:

>> We need to configure its GPIOs later.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
>> ---
> 
> Forgot to say, this depends on 8a64e557f399090f5d1917b2f32a065da2b12be1
> ("gpio: pca953x: fix vendor prefix for PCA9654") which is in
> gpio/for-next already. I cherry-picked this commit and SATA still works.

    It's in Linus' (Torvalds!) tree for quite some time already. :-)

MBR, Sergei
Wolfram Sang Dec. 21, 2017, 12:37 p.m. UTC | #3
> > Forgot to say, this depends on 8a64e557f399090f5d1917b2f32a065da2b12be1
> > ("gpio: pca953x: fix vendor prefix for PCA9654") which is in
> > gpio/for-next already. I cherry-picked this commit and SATA still works.
> 
>    It's in Linus' (Torvalds!) tree for quite some time already. :-)

Well, it was not in renesas-drivers/sh-pfc-for-v4.16 which I used as a
base for the SATA work which again is based on v4.15-rc1. But nice that
it is upstream already, thanks for the heads up.
Simon Horman Jan. 2, 2018, 9:40 a.m. UTC | #4
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:37:16PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > Forgot to say, this depends on 8a64e557f399090f5d1917b2f32a065da2b12be1
> > > ("gpio: pca953x: fix vendor prefix for PCA9654") which is in
> > > gpio/for-next already. I cherry-picked this commit and SATA still works.
> > 
> >    It's in Linus' (Torvalds!) tree for quite some time already. :-)
> 
> Well, it was not in renesas-drivers/sh-pfc-for-v4.16 which I used as a
> base for the SATA work which again is based on v4.15-rc1. But nice that
> it is upstream already, thanks for the heads up.

My tree is also based on v4.15-rc1, for now.
Is it safe to apply this patch without the dependency?
Wolfram Sang Jan. 2, 2018, 10:45 a.m. UTC | #5
> > Well, it was not in renesas-drivers/sh-pfc-for-v4.16 which I used as a
> > base for the SATA work which again is based on v4.15-rc1. But nice that
> > it is upstream already, thanks for the heads up.
> 
> My tree is also based on v4.15-rc1, for now.
> Is it safe to apply this patch without the dependency?

Yes, the driver will simply not bind (which is no regression, because
this is a new node).
Simon Horman Jan. 3, 2018, 10:19 a.m. UTC | #6
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:45:00AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > Well, it was not in renesas-drivers/sh-pfc-for-v4.16 which I used as a
> > > base for the SATA work which again is based on v4.15-rc1. But nice that
> > > it is upstream already, thanks for the heads up.
> > 
> > My tree is also based on v4.15-rc1, for now.
> > Is it safe to apply this patch without the dependency?
> 
> Yes, the driver will simply not bind (which is no regression, because
> this is a new node).

Thanks, understood.

I now see there is a v3. I'll let it sit for a little longer to see
if Geert wishes to review it.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
index a298df74ca6c03..ab4763f09dc7fd 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/salvator-common.dtsi
@@ -338,6 +338,11 @@ 
 &i2c4 {
 	status = "okay";
 
+	pca9654: gpio@20 {
+		compatible = "onnn,pca9654";
+		reg = <0x20>;
+	};
+
 	csa_vdd: adc@7c {
 		compatible = "maxim,max9611";
 		reg = <0x7c>;