On 9/16/2014 4:42 PM, Jason Kridner wrote: > > Approach looks good to me. I know the dropping of the pin assignment > in the i2c device tree itself will cause some heartache for some.
Yes, but there's no other way to do this, AFAIK. I would suggest migrating the mode= settings and the device stanza into it's own include file. I tried more to make the minimal possible changes vs. restructuring the whole device-tree layout (ie: I didn't want to try and factor out the i2c2 device into it's own dtsi file). > I don't see where you removed the definition of the i2c pin settings > themselves. Will not removing those entries cause headaches by someone > assuming they are used or is it comfortable for them to simply be > there by reference? I suspect it would only be an issue if a bug was > found in the setting and someone missed that the real mode was coming > from the helper. I didn't remove them, and they might still be useful. It possible to switch between the "old style" of pinmux control for devices and the pinmux helper version, possibly even by using different dtsi include files. At this point I am not trying to advocate any particular device tree layout (in terms of what goes into which include files), I'm simply making the feature available. If the modified pinmux helper is a sensible approach, we can start talking about exactly what the device tree files should look like. -- Charles Steinkuehler [email protected] -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
