On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +For each peripheral/bank we will descibe in a u32 if a pin can be > +configured in it by putting 1 to the pin bit (1 << pin) This seems to be describing driver intrinsics in the device tree, like how the hardware is routed on the inside and what it can do. IMO that is driver territory, the driver should know these limitations and protest if you try to do something illegal. Anyway as the AT91 maintainers seem to disagree I will allow some more time for discussion before merging the patch. I can't really have one AT91 maintainer NACKing another, it doesn't matter that this is a separate driver, in my book the MAINTAINERS entry for AT91 as a whole overrides that so can you please find an agreement on how to handle this or I will stall the patch until you're in agreement. ARM SoC maintainers input would be welcomed. 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
