On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Fenglin Wu <fenglinw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am not sure if this is valid case but it would happen: The > hardware or the sw prior to linux kernel has the default setting of the > function and config for one GPIO but we need to keep it disabled until > the consumer request it, in this case, we just need to define the pinmux > and ignore the pinconf definition in its device node. This firmware-kernel partitioning of responsibilities makes me nervous every time it happens. Who's in charge really? Who fixes bugs? Firmware? Linux? Linux overriding firmware? Linux overriding firmware on special firmware revisions? Linux overriding firmware on special firmware revisions that cannot be detected and instead needs to be passed as cmdline parmeters? This kind of stuff gives me the creeps and just a general feeling of not being in control having very little clue as to what is really going on in the system. But I guess that is essentially the working assumption for things like ACPI and other behind-my-back firmware: don't worry be happy. Anyways, it's up to Björn to establish what is best for the qcom pin control, I'm just gonna accept whatever he ACKs. Just rambling. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
