On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Markus Pargmann <mpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:28:01AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: >> > 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. >From a pinctrl/GPIO point of view anything goes, it's a little bit like big-endian vs little-endian. I did merge the i.MX27 driver as it was ACKed by the subarch maintainers. So what do we do now, shall I revert this patch or can you refactor it in accordance with the comments so it should be kept as a base for the rewrite? Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
