Hi Tony,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:03:44AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > +Required properties:
> > +- compatible: Should include "ti,omap3-ssi".
> > +- reg-names: Contains the values "sys" and "gdd".
>
> Do you need the reg-names? The order won't change so you can just
> document the order in the binding?
The names are not needed, but I like self-documenting code/bindings.
Also the examples in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/resource-names.txt
look similar to this case.
What do you have against the -names properties?
The same statement goes for the following -names comments, so I will
skip them ;)
> [...]
> > +- ti,ssi-cawake-gpio: Defines which GPIO pin is used to signify CAWAKE
> > + events for the port. This is an optional board-specific
> > + property. If it's missing the port will not be
> > + enabled.
>
> Hmm this might be just a wake-up GPIO? If so, you should be able to
> just set it up as an interrupt and do a request_irq on the pinctrl-single
> entry for it.
Yes, this gpio is used as interrupt in the driver, but its also read
directly. I already considered making it an irq in the DT data
(since its mainly used as irq), but I could not find out how to read
the current status of an irq line.
> It might even be one of the already mapped interrupt lines that the code is
> remuxing to a GPIO for idle? If so, then you can just use the new binding
> for interrupts-extended to handle the wake-up events.
>
> If you post the GPIO number for ti,ssi-cawake-gpio and the interrupt
> numbers I can check if there's a need to handle it separately as a GPIO
> pin or if it already can be automatically handled for the wake-up events.
You can see it in one of the next patches, which adds the needed
nodes in omap3-n900.dts. The used GPIO on N900 is 151 (gpio5 23)
and I use the following pinmux configuration:
0x152 (PIN_INPUT | WAKEUP_EN | MUX_MODE4)
P.S.: I intend to get this into 3.15. Before I will send an updated
series, which uses the omap clock DT bindings as requested by
DT binding maintainers.
-- Sebastian