> On Mar 7, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Jean-Christophe,
>
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 00:49:55 +0800
> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 26/02/2015 10:34, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit :
>>>> Today if we want to disable a pio bank we may will siliently break pinctrl
>>>> configuration in the DT. This will be detected only at runtime.
>>>>
>>>> So move the pinctrl configuration to the bank instead of the bus.
>>>> This allow to detect pinctrl issue at DT compiling time when disable a bank.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ---
>>>> .../bindings/pinctrl/atmel,at91-pinctrl.txt | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/atmel,at91-pinctrl.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/atmel,at91-pinctrl.txt
>>>> index b7a93e8..78355ee 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/atmel,at91-pinctrl.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/atmel,at91-pinctrl.txt
>>>> @@ -148,3 +148,69 @@ dbgu: serial@fffff200 {
>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_dbgu>;
>>>> status = "disabled";
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> +II) New Bindings per PIO Block
>>>
>>> Sorry but NACK.
>>>
>>> I don't want to manage another flavor of the pinmux biding with no real
>>> benefit. I would have been good if we had it from day-1. Now it's too late.
>>
>> yes we do, we catch but a compiling time instead of RUNTIME which is critical
>>
>> so I’ll pass on the NACK
>
> Tell me, how can you pass on a NACK coming from the at91 maintainer
> (which is also your co-maintainer) when you modify bindings of an at91
> driver ?
> Please let's try to be constructive here, so that we can find an
> acceptable solution.
I do pass on it which means, I do not accept to stop here the discussion because of this
as Nicolas did for dropping the soc detection when I NACK
>
>>
>>>
>>> Moreover, splitting a binding definition if you have a function given by
>>> multiple banks can be weird and not well understood in regard to our
>>> current group+function definition scheme (Cf. your last example).
>>>
>
> I don't think it's a good idea either: you'll have to split pinconf
> definitions and that definitely doesn't improve readability.
in HW it’s already the CASE. And today disable a bank you BROKE a board without
even known it. This is NOT acceptable when we can detect it at compiling TIME.
>
>>
>> Others already do so and this is not complex at all
>
> Could you point out these bindings (and real examples please).
look at ST-E 9500 pinctrl they DO use it
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Boris
>
>
> --
> Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
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
