On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 13:24, Shevchenko, Andriy <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:53:42AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 08:02, <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > Kindly help to review this patch set. > > > > This version looks a lot better to me, but I am still requesting you > > to model the pinctrl correctly. I don't see a reason not to, but I may > > have overlooked some things. > > I'm wondering why we need to mock up a pin control from something which has no > pin control interface. It's rather communication with firmware that does pin > control under the hood, but it also may be different hardware in the other / > future generations. Would you accept mocking up the same calls over the kernel > as pin control, as something else? Well, my point is that modeling this a pinctrl would keep the mmc driver portable. Additionally, it's very common to manage pinctrls in mmc drivers, so it's not like this is an entirely new thing that I propose. If/when it turns out that there is a new HW having a different pinctrl interface, it would just mean that we need a new pinctrl driver, but can leave the mmc driver as is. > > > Would you mind to re-submit to include the gpio/pinctlr list and the > > maintainers, to get their opinion. > > And I will send immediately the same comment which I believe Linus W. supports. > But who knows... > > Cc'ed to Linus as I mentioned him. Thanks, let's see what Linus thinks then. Kind regards Uffe
