On 06/10/2015 01:33 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Le 04/05/2015 10:56, Ludovic Desroches a écrit :
The way pins, groups and functions are tied is too constraining for some
controllers. It concerns mainly the ones we don't care about groups and
functions, each pin can be muxed to any functions.
The goal of these two patches is too remove some of the constraints.
I have added the prototype of a pin controller and device tree to show the
way I want to use these changes. I couldn't test it on boards using generic
pinconf so I am not sure that I don't break something...
Ludovic Desroches (4):
pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers
pinctrl: introduce complex pin description
Linus,
Ludovic sent this series nearly one month ago. It was posted after a RFC
series on the same topic two months ago. As we don't see any comment on
neither of them we assume that it's okay to include them.
It's a quite big patch and I need help reviewing it and thinking of
some possible consequences.
Stephen, can you give me a hand with this?
I don't have the patch in my list archive, which goes back 60 days.
Judging purely by the patch description, the patch sounds incorrect.
There's nothing in pinctrl that prevents a particular pin controller
from supporting all mux functions on all pins or groups. Simply return
the same list of functions for every pin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
