On 27/10/15 16:13, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 13/10/15 10:37, Paul Cercueil wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Looks good to me, but as it is a little bit 'different' and we are >> defining entirely new generic bindings (the channel modes stuff) >> I would like some more input. It might be overkill but we do >> of course have the pinctl framework which covers this sort of >> thing... Might be worth considering if using that to get the unified >> bindings might make sense here... >> >> cc'd Linus in case he wants to comment on this. >> >> It would obviously be a very heavy weight solution to the problem >> so I'm far from convinced it makes sense - or even fits the usecase >> terrible well. Just thought I'd mention the possibility. > > There is something of a grey area between "definately pin control" > and "some extra pin hardware duct-taped to something else". > > I guess that is natural, life is full of grey areas... > > Basically if there are plenty of pins and functions, local solutions > to the problem will not scale. Then it is necessary to go ahead > and implement full pin control. Especially for say a big BGA > package or so with lots and lots of pins. > > It is is a few pins or they just alter between similar functionality > (like different graphic modes) I think local solutions are OK. Thanks Linus. Makes sense -- 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
