On 07/30/2013 02:53 PM, Andrew Chew wrote: >> 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? Oh, I thought you said you were dropping it. I don't see a need to apply it if the correct approach is Laxman's pinctrl driver. -- 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
