On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:11:18PM -0500, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:54:00AM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > > + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "qcom,mode", &mode)) {
> > > + dev_err(gsbi->dev, "missing mode configuration\n");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> >
> > I'm wondering if you should really be a (very simple) pinctrl driver
> > proper.
>
> Perhaps. But how would i reconcile more than one device node that uses the same
> GSBI? One could still trounce the other unless I only allow one setting of the
> GSBI.
>
I don't understand, as long as the pins/functions have been specified
properly to the pinctrl core, I would expect a conflicting configuration
to be rejected.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect the subnodes to be consuming the GSBI pin
configuration anyway (although that could probably be done), instead, I
would expect the GSBI node to consume it's own pin configuration.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
