On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:14:50AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/10/2015 01:33 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>Le 04/05/2015 10:56, Ludovic Desroches a écrit : > >>> > >>>The way pins, groups and functions are tied is too constraining for some > >>>controllers. It concerns mainly the ones we don't care about groups and > >>>functions, each pin can be muxed to any functions. > >>>The goal of these two patches is too remove some of the constraints. > >>> > >>>I have added the prototype of a pin controller and device tree to show the > >>>way I want to use these changes. I couldn't test it on boards using generic > >>>pinconf so I am not sure that I don't break something... > >>> > >>> > >>>Ludovic Desroches (4): > >>> pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers > >>> pinctrl: introduce complex pin description > >> > >>Linus, > >> > >>Ludovic sent this series nearly one month ago. It was posted after a RFC > >>series on the same topic two months ago. As we don't see any comment on > >>neither of them we assume that it's okay to include them. > > > >It's a quite big patch and I need help reviewing it and thinking of > >some possible consequences. > > > >Stephen, can you give me a hand with this? > > I don't have the patch in my list archive, which goes back 60 days. > > Judging purely by the patch description, the patch sounds incorrect. There's > nothing in pinctrl that prevents a particular pin controller from supporting > all mux functions on all pins or groups. Simply return the same list of > functions for every pin. Maybe my description is not accurate. I'll resend it. Ludovic -- 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
