On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Christian Ruppert >> <christian.ruppert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> [Me] >>>> I don't see any of the port concept creeping into the device tree >>>> in this version and that is how I think it should be kept: >>>> the "port" particulars is a thing for the driver and not the >>>> device tree. ... >>> In the driver under discussion, pin groups are defined for every >>> "interface" to make sure that interfaces can be requested in an >>> orthogonal way by different modules and modules don't have to be "aware" >>> of which interfaces are grouped into which port (and which other modules >>> request which other interfaces). A request either succeeds or fails. >>> Resource management (which interfaces can be mapped simultaneously) is >>> done inside the pinctrl driver. >> >> OK > > This actually looks 100% coherent with Documentation/pinctrl.txt. But > then I don't understand Stephen's request to introduce the concept of > "ports" in the device tree. IMHO ports are a hardware limitation which > should be managed inside the pinctrl driver and if possible not leak > out of it. Also (as stated above), the concept of "ports" does not even > exist in the pinmux framework so why introduce it for DT? > > I might have thoroughly misunderstood you here, Stephen. Please be > patient with me and explain once more. I don't think I asked for ports to be represented in DT. Do you have more context? -- 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
