Hi Tomasz, On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes. This IP has only default pin configuration. > > Padmavathi, this was the only issue I spotted, so have my: > > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for your review. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > Best Regards, Padma -- 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
