On Monday 12 of August 2013 14:12:36 Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Monday 12 of August 2013 12:34:48 Mark Brown wrote: > > > I'd expect that to interact badly with the pinmuxing - unless the > > > device is disabled it'll try to grab its pins on probe which is not > > > going to be a good idea unless it is actually wired up for use in > > > the system. Or is there some other mechanism for handling that? > > > > Ah, good point. Now I wonder whether pinctrl nodes shouldn't be > > considered board-specific and specified in board-level dts instead? > > It seems a bit cleaner to use the current mechanism in that it stops the > device appearing at all and hence repeated efforts to probe, plus a > simple enable is less error prone, the way these SoCs are designed you > don't have to pick which pinmux is in use for most of the IPs. Where > there are multiple options it does seem like a good approach though. > > Tastes may differ though. Right, if this SoC has only one pinmux setting for this IP, then it's fine. Padmavathi, this was the only issue I spotted, so have my: Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
