On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 11:21:40 Padma Venkat wrote: > 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. You're welcome. Thanks for keeping up with this series and addressing all the comments. :) 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
