Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751754Ab3FYPrQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:47:16 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:35008 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102Ab3FYPrP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:47:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51C9B7B4.6030109@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1371128132-18266-2-git-send-email-christian.ruppert@abilis.com> <51BA3BC1.3090109@wwwdotorg.org> <20130614091241.GA23745@ab42.lan> <51C1F42E.5090107@wwwdotorg.org> <51C1F82C.4020502@wwwdotorg.org> <20130620115710.GB942@ab42.lan> <51C4C2ED.5090505@wwwdotorg.org> <51C9B7B4.6030109@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:47:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make non-linear GPIO ranges accesible from gpiolib From: Linus Walleij To: Stephen Warren Cc: Christian Ruppert , Patrice CHOTARD , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Sascha Leuenberger , Pierrick Hascoet , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2106 Lines: 57 On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/25/2013 08:56 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 06/20/2013 05:57 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote: >> >>>> Your remark seems to reflect one of the following two hardware >>>> architectures: >>>> >>>> +- SPI >>>> Physical pins --- GPIO --- pinctrl -+- I2C >>>> +- mmc >>> >>> (that's diagram 1) >>> >>>> >>>> +- GPIO >>>> Physical pins -+ +- SPI >>>> +- pinctrl -+- I2C >>>> +- mmc >>> >>> (that's diagram 2) >>> >>>> TB10x hardware architecture: >>>> >>>> +- SPI >>>> Physical pins --- pinctrl -+- I2C >>>> +- mmc >>>> +- GPIO >>> >>> (that's diagram 3) >>> >>> No, I was thinking of diagram 3 above. I'm not sure if diagrams (1) or >>> (2) are common or exist? >> >> The U300 pin controller is obviously of type (1) as it can spy on >> the signals. > > U300 HW might be diagram (1) - I can't say since I'm not familiar with > the HW. However, the fact that GPIO can spy on signals in no way at all > implies that the HW must conform to diagram (1). That's true. And I don't know what it actually is in this case. That hardware is actually weird in many ways, thanks to helpful HW engineers modeling use cases into the HW. >> The Nomadik pin controller is basically type (2). This I know however to be true, as I have access to the low-level schematics of the ASIC. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/