Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:32:11 +0800 | From | Shawn Guo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/5] pinctrl: add dt binding support for pinmux mappings |
| |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 05:08:57PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: ... > As you can see none of the text above claims that the group is > about hardware-defined groups or anything like that. The groups > are just that - a group of pins, an abstract concept of a group.
Ok, the thing gets clarified. The concept of group is a abstract at software level. It does not necessarily require a pin group defined by raw hardware underneath, which is basically my argument.
> It could be drawn i UML even... maybe I'll do that for my > ELC presentation :-) > > Then when we come to pinmux, which is slightly different > involving the definitions of a function and mappings between > functions and one or more pin groups as per above, which is > something completely different and seems to be what you're > discussing here? > > For hardware that does handle pins in groups there are > special functions that can be used in the drivers like > configuring a whole group (which falls back to iterating > over pins if there is no such callback, showing again that > this is a theoretical concept) so if the hardware handles > pins in groups its a good idea to match group definitions > 1-to-1 with these, but for hardware that doesn't there is > some freedom of how to use the groups. > > I don't know if this helps though the discussion here seems > a bit contended :-/ > It does help to me. Thanks, Linus.
-- Regards, Shawn
| |