On 09/16/2012 09:46 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
+Required properties:
+- compatible: "marvell,88f6180-pinctrl",
+ "marvell,88f6190-pinctrl", "marvell,88f6192-pinctrl",
+ "marvell,88f6281-pinctrl", "marvell,88f6282-pinctrl"
+
+This driver supports all kirkwood variants, i.e. 88f6180, 88f619x, and 88f628
The current MPP code determines for itself what chip it is running on.
It can then check if a pin configuration is valid for the current
run time environment.
Here you are suggesting we have to put into the DT what chip we expect
to be on.
What is the advantage of this, over getting the information from the
device itself?
Hi Andrew,
there is no advantage over determining the variant on run time except
that it is statically and (normally) known at boot time. I understand
that mass converting kirkwood to pinctrl would require to know all
the different variants.
If there are no objections from the others, I agree to determine the
variant from the existing kirkwood_id(). I was just unsure if it is
ok to use platform-specific code with DT here.
Any ideas how to get kirkwood_id() linked into pinctrl-kirkwood with
the get-rid-of-arch-includes policy?
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
