On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:41:09PM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:06:19PM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote: > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ > > > > > +* Freescale i.MX7ULP IOMUX Controller > > > > > + > > > > > +Please refer to fsl,imx-pinctrl.txt in this directory for common > > > > > +binding part and usage. > > > > > > > > Are imx7ulp-pinctrl bindings more alike to fsl,imx-pinctrl.txt or > > > > generic pinctrl-bindings.txt? My personal feeling is that it might > > > > be better to take pinctrl-bindings.txt as the reference base and > > > > highlight how imx7ulp- pinctrl bindings differ from it. > > > > > > > > > > It seems still more like fsl,imx-pinctrl.txt. > > > > > > I know fsl,imx-pinctrl.txt is a bit out of date, especially after we > > > add generic pinconf. > > > > > > I plan to update it later after adding generic pin conf support to > > > legacy SoCs (MX6 & 7) as well, do you think it's ok? > > > > Please do not. Let's use generic pinconf support only for new SoCs, and > > not bother with legacy SoCs. > > > > I wonder there may be some guys interested more in generic Pinconfig format > rather than old one when they add new board support, or someone else > adding the support for legacy SoCs as the pinctrl-imx core already > supports it after this patch series. I would take this as an unnecessary churn on existing code and increase of maintenance burden. So that's definitely a NO from me. Shawn -- 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
