Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:26:01 -0500 | From | Nishanth Menon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: dts: add support for AM437x StarterKit |
| |
On 06/18/2014 06:19 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: [...] >>>>> Add support for TI's AM437x StarterKit Evaluation >>>>> Module. >>>> >>>> is there a link for this platform? >>> >>> internal only >> >> but will eventually be sold externally? I assume this is not an TI > > probably, but there's nothing public yet. > >> internal only board. > > correct assumption for all I know.
Yikes.. ok.. I'd let Tony et.al make the call on this, I guess.
[...] >>>>> + edt-ft5306@38 { >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> + compatible = "edt,edt-ft5306", "edt,edt-ft5x06"; >>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&edt_ft5306_ts_pins>; >>>>> + reg = <0x38>; >>>>> + interrupt-parent = <&gpio0>; >>>>> + interrupts = <31 0>; >>>>> + >>>>> + wake-gpios = <&gpio1 28 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; >>>> >>>> why wake-gpios? we should be using pinctrl with interrupt-extended to >>>> do wakeup sequence, no? >>> >>> sure, can you patch the edt driver ? I'll fix the DTS after that gets >>> merged >> >> If you really want to go down that road, so you could probably help >> review the pinctrl patches I posted to enable pinctrl wakeup[1]? >> >> Come on, as of today, there is no ability to suspend AM437x without >> doing [1], let alone talk about wakeup gpio vs interrupt-extended. and >> do we really want to wakeup from suspend when touch screen is touched? >> >> Do you expect wake-gpio to work even after doing interrupt based >> solution? I am no edt driver expert... maybe you can help me here. > > you missed the point entirely. This pin is not used for the touchscreen > to wake SoC up, it's the other way around, see how the pin is an > *output*. Pull it low and the touchscreen won't generate IRQs, won't > respond to i2c accesses, etc. Pull it high, and the thing wakes up.
Aaah.. My apologies.. I was confused. Thanks for clarifying.
[...] >>>>> + cd-gpios = <&gpio0 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +&usb2_phy1 { >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +&usb1 { >>>>> + dr_mode = "peripheral"; >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +&usb2_phy2 { >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +&usb2 { >>>>> + dr_mode = "host"; >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> +}; >>>> none of the above need pinctrl? no regulator supplies? >>> >>> pins in default states, drivers don't use regulators. >> >> USB works without a supply? even a fixed voltage supply? that is >> weird. > > take a look at the minicom output I posted if you don't believe. Well, > to be exact, tps63010 [1] is the one which generates the regulated V5_0D > which is used as VBUS_USB. The enable pin in that device is tied to the > 3v3 rail (dcdc4 regulator in the PMIC as most everything else) but > there's no way (otherwise) to control that thing. There's no control > bus, no way to write a driver. > > Since the board will anyways turn off if you disable the 3v3 rail, it's > pretty much pointless to figure out a hack just to add this to DTS. > > [1] http://www.ti.com/product/TPS63010
I am sure to trust you on the test log :) -> but then from dts description perspective, it is good if we describe the supplies, even as a always on fixed-regulator. We had instances like 2430SDP ethernet where... umm... we originally missed describing ethernet supply and boom, one fine morning, no more nfs filesystem - I mean, it is a one off scenario there, but describing regulators helps us atleast understand the power tree of the board a little better.
Again, no strong opinions on my side, it is a good thing to do is all I feel about it.
-- Regards, Nishanth Menon
| |