On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:25:23AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > In general, it all looks good. I only have 2 areas of concern. The first is a > nit and it has to do with alternate pins for functions. There really isn't a > need for a separate function name. That would only be required if the same pin > had multiple functions defined for the same thing. > I have to blame unclear documentation here ;) Will drop all the _[abc] suffixes. > As for the second area of concern, there are some discrepancies between our > internal function map and yours. This is probably due to some minor difference > in chip rev. I'll try to find more information on this and determine if that is > true, or if one set of documentation is incorrect. I'll await your feedback on this; but as the documentation available to me would be a rewrite of what you have I suspect we'll end up with your versions. Just ping me when you figure this one out and I'll respin. Thanks for the review! Regards, Bjorn -- 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
