On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/24/2012 02:09 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >> From what I know, compatible-properties should not be linux-specific >> since devicetrees are OS independent. pinctrl-i2cmux sounds >> linux-specific to me. >> >> So, is such a binding acceptable meanwhile? > > To my mind, "pinctrl" has two meanings: (1) is the Linux internal API > (2) is the pinctrl bindings in > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl, which were admittedly > developed strongly based on Linux's pinctrl API needs, but I believe > should be completely agnostic to the pinctrl API, SW, OS, etc., and > hence can be considered a pure representation of hardware. > > As such, the "pinctrl" in "pinctrl-i2cmux" above refers to (2) above, > and can be considered a pure HW/binding term. I second Stephens statement. Now every OS in the world must start to think about these things as pin controllers. But tt's not like there is competing terminology anyway, so let's define this before we get into committee meetings... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
