| Message ID | 20210602121313.v3.2.I52f30ddfe62041b7e6c3c362f0ad8f695ac28224@changeid |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Update sd card pinconf for sc7180 DT | expand |
Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:14 PM Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org> wrote: > > Some SC7180 based board do not have external pull-up for cd-gpio. nit: s/board/boards Presumably Bjorn could fix this when he applies the patch. I wouldn't re-post just for this fix unless Bjorn asks you to. > Set this pin to internal pull-up for sleep config to avoid frequent > regulator toggle events. > > Signed-off-by: Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org> > --- > > Changes in v3: > - remove 'trogdor' from commit message > - move reference patch from commit message > > Changes in v2: > - added pull-up for IDP > > This change is with reference to Qualcomm's DT change posted at: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11675347/ > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts | 2 +- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) FYI: I had my Reviewed-by tag on v2. While you did make changes between v2 and v3, in this case I don't think the changes were significant enough to warrant removing my Reviewed-by tag and I would have been happy if you'd kept it. In general, if you ever have questions about whether you should keep someone's reviewed tag, it never hurts to mention your logic "after the cut" (I think you use patman so this would be "Commit-notes:"). For instance, you could say this if you removed Reviewed-by tags: I totally recombobulated the frobnication logic in v3 and removed previous Reviewed-by tags. Hopefully reviewers can re-add if they still think the patch is good. ...or, you could say this if you kept them but you weren't totally sure it was OK: Even though every single line in the v3 patch changed from v2, it's only because I fixed a stoopid spelling Mistake. Thus, I kept previous Reviewed-by tags. Please yell if you object. Who knew that the only acceptable spelling of the English word "stupid" in kerneldoc comments was written as "stoopid". Live and learn. :-) In any case, here's my Reviewed-by tag again. I also agree that Bjorn's comments made sense and were good to fix... Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Hi, On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:33:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:14 PM Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Some SC7180 based board do not have external pull-up for cd-gpio. > > nit: s/board/boards > > Presumably Bjorn could fix this when he applies the patch. I wouldn't > re-post just for this fix unless Bjorn asks you to. I can repost this patch again with this fix if required > FYI: I had my Reviewed-by tag on v2. While you did make changes > between v2 and v3, in this case I don't think the changes were > significant enough to warrant removing my Reviewed-by tag and I would > have been happy if you'd kept it. > > In general, if you ever have questions about whether you should keep > someone's reviewed tag, it never hurts to mention your logic "after > the cut" (I think you use patman so this would be "Commit-notes:"). > For instance, you could say this if you removed Reviewed-by tags: > It is good to know this. > I totally recombobulated the frobnication logic in v3 and removed > previous Reviewed-by tags. Hopefully reviewers can re-add if they > still think the patch is good. > > ...or, you could say this if you kept them but you weren't totally > sure it was OK: > > Even though every single line in the v3 patch changed from v2, it's > only because I fixed a stoopid spelling Mistake. Thus, I kept previous > Reviewed-by tags. Please yell if you object. Who knew that the only > acceptable spelling of the English word "stupid" in kerneldoc comments > was written as "stoopid". Live and learn. > > :-) > > In any case, here's my Reviewed-by tag again. I also agree that > Bjorn's comments made sense and were good to fix... > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Thanks for adding review tag again. I intended to keep this tag since only commit message is updated, but I forgot to add it back while posting latest version. -Sujit
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts index 07133e0af581a..0c255edb7f3c3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts @@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ pinconf-data { pinconf-sd-cd { pins = "gpio69"; - bias-disable; + bias-pull-up; drive-strength = <2>; }; }; diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi index d128a0ed6ad3a..330deb4967ca2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi @@ -1638,7 +1638,7 @@ pinconf-data { pinconf-sd-cd { pins = "gpio69"; - bias-disable; + bias-pull-up; drive-strength = <2>; }; };
Some SC7180 based board do not have external pull-up for cd-gpio. Set this pin to internal pull-up for sleep config to avoid frequent regulator toggle events. Signed-off-by: Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org> --- Changes in v3: - remove 'trogdor' from commit message - move reference patch from commit message Changes in v2: - added pull-up for IDP This change is with reference to Qualcomm's DT change posted at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11675347/ arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts | 2 +- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)