Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal
From: Stephen Warren
Date: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 00:28:32 EST
On 02/06/2012 11:03 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [120206 08:58]:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
> 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?
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/