On 07/27/2013 03:55 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:42 AM, Andrew Chew wrote: >> I wrote: >>> Andrew wrote: >>>> [adding a third pinmux configuration property to Palmas's DT] >>> >>> How does this interact with the pinctrl driver that Laxman just >>> sent for Palmas? >>> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/26/141 >>> [PATCH 0/2] pinctrl: palmas: add pincontrol driver .. >> Abandoning this patch. ... > once we will have the pincontrol driver then mux pads are become redundant. OK. The driver should probably operate like this then: * During probe(), parse the ti,mux-pad* parameters, if present, and apply them. This is needed to maintain compatibility with old DTs that may contain these properties. * At the end of probe(), register the pinctrl driver. If standard pinctrl properties are present in DT, these will then be applied. These may override the values set by any ti,mux-pad* properties if they were present. Also, we should remove, or mark deprecated, the ti,mux-pad* properties in the binding document when adding pinctrl support. -- 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
