On 04/25/2012 05:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > 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... Rob, Grant, could you please take a look at the binding at the start of this thread and say if you're OK with the compatible naming, and the binding in general? Thanks. -- 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
