Hi Linus, On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 09:52:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Linus, for me it looks like better to revert that change, until we > > will have clear picture why existing configuration parameters can't > > work. > > Yeah I'll revert the binding for fixes. > As it seems we won't be able to proceed with the currently proposed solution, would that be acceptable now that we use the "pinmux" property to add flags as BIDIR and SWIO_[INPUT|OUTPUT] directly there? This was my original proposal, rejected because we were using the "pins" property at the time. Quoting to the description of "pinmux": "Each individual pin controller driver bindings documentation shall specify how those values (pin IDs and pin multiplexing configuration) are defined and assembled together" Do you think the "flags" we have failed to describe as generic pin configuration properties, fit the definition of "pin multiplexing configuration" to be assembled with pin IDs? As a reference this was the proposed bindings in v3: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg12792.html Have a look at Pin multiplexing sub-nodes examples 2 and 3, with "pinmux" in place of "renesas,pins" property. Thanks j > 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
