Re: [PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers

[Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:14:50AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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.

Maybe my description is not accurate. I'll resend it.


Ludovic
--
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