Cc'ing Pawel since he wrote the sysreg code

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 07:10:36AM +0000, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Linus Walleij [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:
compatible = "syscon";

maybe? VExpress is missing that then...

I don't like the way some vexpress stuff has been done I think, just
not enough reviewing power :(

I think that "syscon" is not meant to be there in the first place and it
was done on purpose for vexpress but I need Pawel to confirm and shed
light on this.

I've tried to make an as clean separation as possible in the Integrator
as it has been refactored with a minimum of time pressure and
I tried to make it as reusable as possible. But it doesn't necessarily
mean I did the right thing all the time ...

quoted

quoted

quoted

+                               reg = <0x00000 0x1000>;
+
+                               v2m_led_gpios: sys_led@08 {
+                                       compatible = "arm,vexpress-sysreg,sys_led";
+                                       gpio-controller;
+                                       #gpio-cells = <2>;
+                               };

These are not GPIOs. These are LED registers really.

A register bit that controls an i/o signal sounds like a GPIO to me.

Are they described as general purpose in the manual for the
board?

In the ARM reference design manuals I've seen these bits are
described as for one purpose only. I mean you can claim the
memory RE signal is "a bit that controls an I/O signal" as well,
but we have to think about the abstraction here.

I will have a look into this.

Thanks,
Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html