RE: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board
From: Stephen Warren <hidden>
Date: 2011-07-06 23:26:26
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree, linux-omap
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2011-07-20 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board · Grant Likely <hidden>
- 2011-07-20 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board · Shawn Guo <hidden>
- 2011-07-20 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board · Grant Likely <hidden>
- 2011-07-20 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board · Shawn Guo <hidden>
- 2011-07-07 · Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board · Grant Likely <hidden>
Grant Likely wrote at Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:56 PM:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:07:23PM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:quoted
Add I2C and it's child device nodes for beagle board. The I2C1 controller child devices are not populated and it should be handled along with OMAP clock changes.
...
quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-beagle.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-beagle.dts
...
quoted
+ i2c@48070000 {
...
quoted
+ clock-frequency = <2600>; + status = "disabled";Drop 'status' when you move this node definition to arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi. Board overlay files that include the omap3.dtsi should explicitly disable any devices that it does not use (which is opposite to what tegra currently does, but I'm going to change that).
Purely out of idle curiosity: What's the benefit of one way over the other? -- nvpublic