On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:37:27AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> [131216 15:39]: > > No, that's a different thing - the PMIC will typically be able to use > > some pins as GPIOs so most expose a GPIO controller. The functions that > > are an issue here are things like voltage selection, voltage transition > > completion status, sleep mode, enable control or whatever that may need > > to be tied to the SoC for interaction (usually not just limited to the > OK. Maybe the best way to deal with that is to have the driver specific > regmap (gpiomap? :) configuration describe that? And then the driver > GPIO configuration is picked up just based on the compatible flags and > the gpios property? Possibly. I'd need to see the resulting code and DTs - I'm not 100% visualising what's meant here. > > Oh, OK. Yes, standardisation of the names has benefits though for some > > of the features (especially voltage selection) the implementation gets > > rather chip specific and there are also advantages in having the DT > > binding correspond to the chip documentation. > > Things that really are very standard probably ought to be being done by > > the core anyway (like we've done with all the factoring out of standard > > voltage map and regmap operations). > Agreed. And a lot of that can be configured automatically based on the > compatible property. Hopefully not even the compatible property - we ought to just be able to pick standard names for some of the standard functions and just support them without any effort from drivers at all.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
