Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018, 20:21:06 CEST schrieb klaus.goger@theobroma-
systems.com:
> Hi Randy,
>
> > On 12.06.2018, at 17:25, Randy Li <ay...@soulik.info> wrote:
> >
> > Those pins would be used by many boards.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Randy Li <ay...@soulik.info>
agree to everything Klaus said ;-) .
[...]
> > + pcie_clkreqn: pci-clkreqn {
> > + rockchip,pins =
> > + <2 26 RK_FUNC_2 &pcfg_pull_none>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + pcie_clkreqnb: pci-clkreqnb {
> > + rockchip,pins =
> > + <4 24 RK_FUNC_1 &pcfg_pull_none>;
> > + };
> > +
>
> I’m not sure if pci-clkreqn is functional at all. If not I’m not sure if we
> should add it to the dtsi. Shawn may know more about it.
Yep, wasn't there a big change away from clkreqn, due it
not being functional?
> > pcie_clkreqnb_cpm: pci-clkreqnb-cpm {
> >
> > rockchip,pins =
> >
> > - <4 RK_PD0 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_none>;
> > + <4 24 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_none>;
> >
> > };
> >
> > };
>
> Could we actually use RK_Pxx for all new pin definitions? Would increase
> readability a lot.
Especially as the above change really only seems to change RK_PD0 back
to 24, so this block (and some others) will go away entirely.
Heiko
