RE: Pinmux bindings proposal V2

[Stephen Warren]

Tony Lindgren wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:09 PM:
...
> I don't think we should try to pass the different possible states from
> device tree. The pinmux/pinconf driver should know how to deal with that,

Somehow, the pinctrl driver needs to know how to implement each state. In 
general, I believe this will be board-specific.

Do you disagree with this assertion?

If the data is board-specific, I don't see how it can be represented
anywhere but the device tree.

> and the driver using the mux should be able to communicate what it wants
> to the pinmux/pinconf driver. If people really want to be able to pass
> alternative mux states from device tree, they should be standard bindings
> for things like active/idle/suspend/off.

As I've mentioned before, people have asked for driver-specific states to
handle the case where e.g. drive strength must be adjusted based on clock
rates of the interface. Again, I believe that's board-specific data since
the actual values to use may be derived during board calibration, not
SoC design.

Do you disagree that this data may be board specific?

--
nvpublic

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/