On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:14:01AM +0000, A.s. Dong wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:26 AM > [...] > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. > > > There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP as a > > > special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop it and > > > drop driver features. Once we get objection from users later, we still can > > simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. > > > > We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing > > i.MX8 support. > > > > I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP. > > > > I thought the situation is different as ULP actually already supports generic binding > before that discussion. > > > > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. > > > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. > > > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. > > > > Yes, but these are legacy platforms. > > > > For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we discussed during > > i.MX8 review. > > So the question is whether it's necessary to switch generic binding back to the > legacy one for ULP. Personally I'm not strongly against this, but I need some > confirmation from Shawn and Sascha. > > Shawn & Sascha, would you make a judgement call? > If you also strongly request that, I will try to make it patch to test Linus W. > Hopefully our agreement could satisfy Linus W. For consistency reasons I vote for using the legacy binding for i.MX7ulp aswell. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
