On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/25/2013 09:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> But I do seem to recall some endless discussions about this, >> I think we need to agree to disagree. > > But the whole point of a subsystem is to provide clear common semantics > across all the different drivers that comprise it. I guess we simply disagree on how deeply these semantics should go. > IMHO, it's a great > failing of pinctrl that it doesn't clearly define its data model at all, > and just leaves individual driver authors to use groups in whatever > random fashion they want. I do not think any driver is using it in a "random" fashion. I would agree if the authors just stuck any pins into some random groups named after colors or rock bands. Obviously there is a mental model of the uses somewhere behind the code. > We really should have different entries in the > pinctrl data model for these different concepts (real HW groups, and > logical/virtual/SW groups) since they're entirely different things with > different semantics. That's what the tongue-in-cheek patch tried to convey, in some kind of humorous manner. I was just trying to lighten up the discussion a bit. > Perhaps it's simplest if I just step out of pinctrl and let it exist as > it is. No not at all. Your work on defining and reviewing the pinctrl drivers and DT bindings is much appreciated. However all comittee work tend to lead to a few compromises. I don't think this one compromise is especially hard to live with. 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
