On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 11:06 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:10:56AM +0200, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 18:28 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > About the API usage, point taken. GPIO requesting part is more important > > > > in this case. pinctrl core did not request pins and wrong DT configuration > > > > could lead to surprises without any warnings or errors. > > > > That doesn't answer my concern at all. > > > I am not sure that I am following you. > > > I can not use spi_master::cs_gpios, which is populated by > > of_spi_register_master(), because spi_register_master() > > populate SPI devices and they could issue setup method. > > I'm sorry but I can't parse the above. What does "they could issue > setup method" mean and why is it a problem? Client drivers could execute spi_setup() in probe(), so we have to ensure that CS GPIO's are available before this, no? > > > Requesting GPIO's in core framework is also not a easy > > option because of arguments here[1]. > > We should really fix that though. > I think that pinctrl framework should automatically request pins belonging to group when state is selected. Regards, Ivan -- 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
