Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jul 2011 06:49:11 +0800 | From | Shawn Guo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm/dt: tegra devicetree support |
| |
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 08:37:19AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > Grant Likely wrote at Tuesday, July 19, 2011 5:43 PM: > > Everything required to populate NVIDIA Tegra devices from the device > > tree. This patch adds a new DT_MACHINE_DESC() which matches against > > a tegra20 device tree. So far it only registers the on-chip devices, > > but it will be refined in follow on patches to configure clocks and > > pin IO from the device tree also. > > > > Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> > > --- > > > > Hi all, > > > > Similar to the versatile patch I just posted, this is certainly not > > complete board support, but it is enough to be useful. I'd like to > > merge this for v3.1. It should not break any existing board support. > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts > > tegra-*.dts don't include status="disable" for all the unused controllers. > Should that be added? > > > + sound { > > + compatible = "nvidia,harmony-sound", "nvidia,tegra-wm8903"; > > I thought the sound bindings were still somewhat experimental and not > completely agreed upon. One issue I see is that Device Tree is > supposed to represent pure HW, rather than driver-required abstractions, > and at least the compatible name here is pretty Linux-driver-specific. > > I think there are some devices missing from the DT file for audio too, > e.g. the ALSA "PCM" (DMA) driver. > > Also, the bindings for this aren't documented IIRC. > > I'd suggest dropping the audio part of the DT file until the audio side > is more mature. > > > + spkr-en-gpios = <&codec 2 0>; > > Should that be "gpio" not "gpios", since there is only one? > My reason for using "gpios" over "gpio" is that Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt says so. Unless you want to change the document to elaborate the difference between "gpio" and "gpios", which I do not see the necessity ...
GPIO properties should be named "[<name>-]gpios".
Regards, Shawn
| |