[PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: OMAP: board-4430sdp: MUX configuration for sys_nirq2

Peter Ujfalusi [off-list ref] writes:

Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code
like I did for sys_nirq1:
   
   http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2

That would avoid having to do this in both board files.

I thought about adding sys_nirq2 in my patch too, but did not know how
to properly test it.

Kevin

 	{ .reg_offset = OMAP_MUX_TERMINATOR },
 };

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Hilman [off-list ref] wrote:

Peter Ujfalusi [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The sys_nirq2 is used for twl6040, make sure the pin is configured
correctly.

Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <redacted>
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <redacted>
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c |    3 +++
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c
index c4e17641..72cd206 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c

@@ -827,6 +827,9 @@ static void __init omap_4430sdp_display_init(void)
 #ifdef CONFIG_OMAP_MUX
 static struct omap_board_mux board_mux[] __initdata = {
      OMAP4_MUX(USBB2_ULPITLL_CLK, OMAP_MUX_MODE4 | OMAP_PIN_OUTPUT),
+     /* NIRQ2 for twl6040 */
+     OMAP4_MUX(SYS_NIRQ2, OMAP_MUX_MODE0 |
+               OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | OMAP_PIN_OFF_WAKEUPENABLE),

Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code
like I did for sys_nirq1:

   http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2

That would avoid having to do this in both board files.

Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on
different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to
set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better
since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices
where the muxing can be different.

With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not
a strong requirement though.

Regards
Santosh

On 07/06/2012 04:33 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:

quoted

Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code
like I did for sys_nirq1:

   http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2

That would avoid having to do this in both board files.

Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on
different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to
set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better
since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices
where the muxing can be different.

With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not
a strong requirement though.

There can be board which has twl6030 but does not have twl6040.
The twl6040 is the recommended audio solution for OMAP4+ systems but it can be
replaced by other codec on some boards.
This is the reason I have put the mux configuration into the board files for
sys_nirq2 (which is in these cases are used to handle the interrupt from twl6040).

-- 
P?ter

* Peter Ujfalusi [off-list ref] [120709 02:43]:

On 07/06/2012 04:33 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:

quoted

quoted

Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code
like I did for sys_nirq1:

   http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2

That would avoid having to do this in both board files.

Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on
different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to
set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better
since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices
where the muxing can be different.

With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not
a strong requirement though.

There can be board which has twl6030 but does not have twl6040.
The twl6040 is the recommended audio solution for OMAP4+ systems but it can be
replaced by other codec on some boards.
This is the reason I have put the mux configuration into the board files for
sys_nirq2 (which is in these cases are used to handle the interrupt from twl6040).

OK I'll apply these into devel-board branch.

Tony