On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:28:01AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2013, 10:12 +0100 schrieb Markus Pargmann: > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:54:02AM -0600, Matt Sealey wrote: > [...] > > > > > > Would it be so bad to implement this as a regmap and have two drivers > > > access the same regmap on the Linux side? You don't need two nodes for > > > that, and the IOMUX definitions can live under the GPIO node. There is > > > NOTHING stopping two drivers on Linux matching the same compatible > > > property. Locking and coordination in software of a single IP block > > > used by two drivers shouldn't be arbitrated by the device tree. > > > > I am not sure if it is practical to use the GPIO nodes for the IOMUX > > driver. There are actually 6 GPIO nodes. This would lead to 6 > > iomux controllers? The different pin functions may be distributed over > > different controllers then. > > > > The first version of this series [1] was designed to have a iomux node > > with 6 gpio subnodes. > > Why was this changed? Having two different DT nodes requesting the same > IO region is certainly the wrong thing to do. It was suggested to map the same memory range from both drivers, so I changed the layout completely. Perhaps it would have been better to keep the DT node structure while not passing the memory to the gpio subdevices. Regards, Markus -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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
