Re: about pca955x led driver gpio management

[CÃdric Le Goater]

On 10/25/2017 12:36 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
> 
> Il 24/10/2017 07:51, Cédric Le Goater ha scritto:
>> On 10/17/2017 11:16 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2017 10:20 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Il 17/10/2017 10:18, Cédric Le Goater ha scritto:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2017 09:36 AM, Andrea Scian - DAVE Embedded Systems wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm working on an iMX6 based board with a PCA9555 which is used both to drive LEDs and manage some GPIOs.
>>>>>> The PCA9555 chip and the PCA955[0-3] chips have different control
>>>>>> registers. You need a different led driver for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> My typo sorry, as you can see in the device tree below, I'm using pca9551
>>>>
>>>> ok.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to take a look at how we mixed gpios and leds on the witherspoon
>>>> system using pca9552 chips. we added a gpio-leds binding.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/openbmc/linux/blob/dev-4.10/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-opp-witherspoon.dts
>>>
>>> understood: you configure all pins of PCA955x as GPIOs and the map the one you need as led with gpio-leds binding.
>>
>> Sorry I got distracted.
>>
>>> However to me this is a kind of workaround or, at least, there's nothing about this limitation into the devicetree binding (in fact, IMHO, the device tree binding example will just fail)
>>
>> euh ? what do you mean. There is a real system using this device tree.
>> I think we would know about it if it didn't work. Please explain
>>
> 
> I mean that, for what I understand, your configuration is working because all pin of 9551 are configured as GPIOs (and the binded back as led)
> In my configuration I have some pins configured as led and some as GPIOs, and this is not working.

ok. That might the case. 

We have declared all pins as GPIOs on pca0 then used on top :  

	gpio-keys-polled {
		compatible = "gpio-keys-polled";
		...
	}

and

	leds {
		compatible = "gpio-leds";
		...
	}

which works perfecty fine.


>>> I wrote the attached patch which should fix the issue and allow a more generic approach. WDYT?
>>>
>>> (in case it looks good, I'll send the patch in the correct way)
>>
>> Please send the patch to discuss, add Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx>
>> in cc:
>>
> 
> Sorry for the delay but I'm busy in Prague with OSSummit and ELCE. 
> I 'll send a proper patch 
> and more comments, if needed, by the begin of next week.

ok thanks, I have not seen anything wrong with it. I will see if we can 
get it tested on our systems.

> (BTW, if some of you are here, drop me a line and have a beer together! ;-) )

Nah, not this time. Enjoy :)

Cheers,

C.