On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [me] >> Thus this part of the problem (poking that "select" bit) >> should be handled by the pinmux part of the driver. >> >> The pinconf part does not need to know about it. > > Okay, so how would you recommend handling the case of a pin in a muxing > pingroup that shouldn't be put into peripheral mode? > > E.g. imagine an 18bit display is wired to the (24bit) tft pins (which > are muxed as a group to "tft" function), and the least significant tft > pins are used as GPIOs to control something like board power supplies. > > Without using pinconf I think the muxing pingroups would have to overlap > like below (is that acceptable?): I don't know if I understand your example correctly but are you after this part of the documentation from Documentation/pinctrl.txt: Pinmux conventions ================== (...) It is possible to map several groups to the same combination of device, pin controller and function. This is for cases where a certain function on a certain pin controller may use different sets of pins in different configurations. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
