David Lechner [off-list ref] writes:

On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote:

quoted

This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown
bias on groups of pins.

Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
index 8945815..1c0224c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi

@@ -210,6 +210,11 @@
 			};

 		};
+		pinconf: pin-controller at 22c00c {
+			compatible = "ti,da850-pupd";
+			reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>;
+			status = "disabled";
+		};

Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the
nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today,
but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up.

I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here
is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart
are together, etc.)

Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this
cleaned up be acceptable?

No thanks. That kind of thing is the needless churn that gets us flamed.

Kevin