On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/08/2014 08:46 AM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: >>> >>> >This patch adds that same exact information into the device tree. Why >>> >are we duplicating that information? Why add it to the device tree when >>> >it's already in the driver (and already working). > > >> Probably. It was my natural way of thinking. Pin have a functions. >> It is easier if I measure signals to just look at the device >> tree file. What are you suggesting? > > > Back in July, Qualcomm submitted a patch that added this information into > the device tree: > > http://marc.info/?t=137185166100003&r=1&w=2 > > However, this was rejected. Now it appears that this information is again > being added to the device tree, but it's being accepted. What's different > now? The difference is that in the first proposal pins, groups and functions where defined in DT, in the accepted proposal the devicetree merely selects pins, functions and their configuration. > > Another problem is that these device tree changes makes it difficult to > support ACPI. It's easy to move information between the drivers and the > device tree, because they're kept together. It's not so easy with ACPI. > I'm trying to add ACPI support to the 8x74 pinctrl driver, but it's a moving > target. The DT bindings for 8x74 is all standard pinctrl, so I presume that what you should be looking at is how pinctrl and acpi is interacting, not the specific case of 8x74... Maybe Linus have some input on this? Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
