On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:47:36PM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:10:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > [...] > > Pin groups are supposed to be something that represents some property of > > the pinctrl HW itself. So, if you have register "X" bits 3-0 that define > > the mux function for pins 8, 9, 10, and 11, then there really is a pin > > group that exists in HW, and that pin group will still exist with that > > same definition no matter what SoC you put the pinctrl HW into. If this > > changes, it's not the same pinctrl HW module. > > In TB10x, every function can be activated on exactly one pin group, and > Documentation/pinctrl.txt says "If only one possible group of pins is > available for the function, no group name need to be supplied.". > > Maybe the answer to our concrete question of the tb10x driver is thus > renaming the pingrp device tree property of the original patch into > something like function (by which a pin group can be implied)? > > For example: > iomux: iomux@FF10601c { > compatible = "abilis,tb10x-iomux"; > reg = <0xFF10601c 0x4>; > pctl_gpio_a: pctl-gpio-a { > abilis,function = "gpioa"; > }; > pctl_uart0: pctl-uart0 { > abilis,function = "uart0"; > }; > }; > > What do you think? There doesn't seem to be any opposition to this proposal so please find a revised patch set in the follow up. Greetings, Christian -- 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