Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:28:25 -0800 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal |
| |
On 02/06/2012 11:03 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [120206 08:58]: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote: >> >> I will certainly finalize the pinctrl subsystem as-is, adding the >> pin configurations states as the last major piece. If for nothing >> else it provides some understanding of the problem space. >> >> I think we should keep both for the time being and consider the >> alternative approach when patches appear. So if/when someone >> creates a new subsystem like this, drivers can move over to it on a >> per-driver basis. If there are zero drivers left in pinctrl it can be >> deleted. > > Yes it seems that we can easily do both. So far the only > change needed for pinctrl drivers containing no data is that > we should make the string names optional and structure debugfs > around the physical register addresses instead. I'm basically > just setting the mux register physcal address as the pin name > for now to work around this.
I was thinking that since there was just a plain list of register writes, there wouldn't be any concept of pins, groups, functions, etc. at all. As such, it wouldn't really fit into pinctrl as-is; it'd need to be either something separate, or pinctrl to change substantially more than just allowing unnamed pins, wouldn't it?
-- nvpublic
| |