On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 08:52:40PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>> &usdhc1 {
> >>> pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_usdhc1_1 &pinctrl_usdhc1_1_dat3cd>;
> >>> ...
> >>> status = "okay";
> >>> };
> >>
> >> Are you sure that this will always be the case? This would assume that
> >> the pinctrl entries are always processed sequentially.
> >
> > That will always be the case per my understanding. Otherwise, I would
> > be so surprised. Are you seeing any case that the entries are not
> > processed sequentially?
>
> Given the way the Linux code currently works, I think that will
> currently happen in practice. However, there's nothing in the pinctrl DT
> binding documentation that guarantees (or even mentions) such semantics.
Ah, that's Russell's point, I guess. I think it makes perfect sense to
make this clear in the binding doc, as this "overwrite mechanism" can be
very helpful. I will send a patch for it.
Shawn
--
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
