On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 09:05:07AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > 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(). > It is not an issue to get rid of gpio_request_*(). I was thinking it was a bonus to provide it. > > > > > 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. Ok I can do this change for v2. 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