On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 08:53:34AM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:31:17AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 05:08:07PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Following our discussion, I send an RFC version of my driver. RFC because it is > > > not totally achieved, some cleanup and feature addition is needed. > > > > > > At least, we could discuss about the 'core' part. I have used the pinmux > > > property as Mediatek driver. Patch 3 is the internal dt files we are using. > > > > As you can imagine I am fine with the binding, so I can add my acked-by > > once you send a non-RFC version. > > > > Great, I'm glad to hear that. > > > The only thing I never understood is what's so special about GPIOs that > > they have to bypass the pinctrl framework and instead a gpio_request > > magically translates a gpio into a pin. > > Not sure to really understand your concern here... Do you mean I could > get rid of gpio_request_enable()? I would expect a gpio to be a pin like every other pin, hence configured via the pinctrl framework and not implicitly via gpio_request(). > > > Wouldn't it make sense to at > > least add the pins in their GPIO mode to > > arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2-pinfunc.h? > > It is done, PIN_PA0 could be used for this purpose. I would expect a define like: #define PIN_PA3__GPIO PINMUX_PIN(PIN_PA3, 0, 2) PIN_PAx only contains the pin number, but not the function. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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