On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:37:14PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > Lets look at this from a different perspective. The proposal is not > about importing the DT model into ACPI but importing the Linux pinctrl > model into ACPI. That will allow us to use the Linux pinctrl drivers > to their full potential. Yes we understood that, and in the process you are bypassing the eg ACPI power management model completely, but since all you are after is using the Linux pinctrl kernel driver with ACPI _today_ without going through the ASWG (and without booting with a device tree instead of ACPI) and define a specification that has a chance to co-exist with the ACPI power management model this proposal is the end result, it is a shortcut fraught with problems. > That doesn't stop the development of other, more OS independent, ACPI > models for pinmuxing. Which we can also support. > > I know that there are some discussions for pinmux configuration in the > ASWG, but it does not match the Linux pinctrl model. So we will end up > with a pinctrl driver that offers groups, functions and pin names and > a totally different ACPI description that we can't map to the pinctrl > driver. If you know that there are some discussions please take place in those discussions and work towards a solution that takes into account other parts of ACPI specifications that can be affected, it may take longer to get you there but that's true for everyone who wants to contribute to ACPI specifications I am afraid. Thank you, Lorenzo -- 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
