Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:57:33 -0800 | From | Tony Lindgren <> | Subject | Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal |
| |
* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [120206 14:44]: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote: > > >> I actually had something like unnamed pins in the early patches > >> to register a bunch of anonymous pins ranges, so why not bring > >> it back in. > > > > Yeah it seems that the mux registers should be listed, it might > > require a little bit of thinking for cases where one register > > controls multiple pins. So maybe we need just a new entry for > > mux registers? > > I'm not sure if I'm following completely, if this is inside the devicetree-based > driver file, would it work to just add a struct dentry * to the > pinctrl_desc where you put a per-driver file?
I was thinking generic debufs entries for all drivers.
> Or maybe add extern void pinctrl_add_debugfs(struct dentry *) that adds > a new file to the existing per-driver directory through the core and then > have this add that file?
Sounds like you've thought it further than me already :)
Maybe that's the way to go to solve the one register for multiple pins issue.
> Or did you mean that the core.c should be register-aware?
I was just thinking string name ignoring core.c, so that would be the pinctrl_add_debugfs() option then. Do you see problems with this approach?
Regards,
Tony
| |