> 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. Sounds reasonable to me. The fate of my patch hasn't really been discussed, though. Can we apply it, to make the ti,mux-pad* stuff complete? -- 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
