On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Eventually, yes, it needs both. But they don't even have to be the >> same driver, since they provide two different features. The only >> reason we have that construct in the pio case is because they share >> the same address space, but in the AXP case, the regmap and our mfd >> take care of that already. > > Hmm, so your suggesting to have mfd instantiate 2 platform devices > for this, a gpio and a pinctrl device, each with their own > driver. Yes that would work, but I'm a bit worried about the 2 > racing or some such since they both will end up touching > bit 0-2 of register 0x90 / 0x92, more-over since they are both > touching the exact same bits I've the feeling that this really > should be one driver. We can put the driver in drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-axp209.c from day one, add in comments stating that it only implements GPIO for now and that the GPIO portion must call pinctrl_request_gpio() and the pin controller must implement .gpio_request_enable() the day it is added so the GPIOs do not conflict with other use of the pins. Requireing a huge slew of upfront code is a bit hard on simple drivers I think. Also we have the solution in drivers/mfd/stmpe.c that just add a simple mux code when pins on mixsigs or simple expanders can just mux some two-three different functions, then I think pin control may be a bit too thick overhead. (Not sure where the limit is though.) 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
