On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:47:36PM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:10:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> [...]
> > Pin groups are supposed to be something that represents some property of
> > the pinctrl HW itself. So, if you have register "X" bits 3-0 that define
> > the mux function for pins 8, 9, 10, and 11, then there really is a pin
> > group that exists in HW, and that pin group will still exist with that
> > same definition no matter what SoC you put the pinctrl HW into. If this
> > changes, it's not the same pinctrl HW module.
>
> In TB10x, every function can be activated on exactly one pin group, and
> Documentation/pinctrl.txt says "If only one possible group of pins is
> available for the function, no group name need to be supplied.".
>
> Maybe the answer to our concrete question of the tb10x driver is thus
> renaming the pingrp device tree property of the original patch into
> something like function (by which a pin group can be implied)?
>
> For example:
> iomux: iomux@FF10601c {
> compatible = "abilis,tb10x-iomux";
> reg = <0xFF10601c 0x4>;
> pctl_gpio_a: pctl-gpio-a {
> abilis,function = "gpioa";
> };
> pctl_uart0: pctl-uart0 {
> abilis,function = "uart0";
> };
> };
>
> What do you think?
There doesn't seem to be any opposition to this proposal so please find
a revised patch set in the follow up.
Greetings,
Christian
--
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
