* Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> [170512 00:32]: > On 11/05/17 17:16, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > >> pinctrl-single doesn't allow to freely set the bits, but requires the > >> pins to have similar bit structure (function-mask). In CONTROL_DSIPHY, > >> DSI1 and DSI2 have different bit structures. > > > > OK if the register mixes different types of controllers that > > can't be partitioned into separate 8 or 16 bit instances then > > you're out of luck with pinctrl-single. If it does not fit, no > > point trying to force it, then you need a custom pinctrl driver. > > Writing a driver for a single register on a legacy SoC feels like an > overkill... But I guess a generic pinctrl driver which allows free > writes to registers would do the trick, but, then again, if so far we > have a single register in a single SoC that needs this, maybe it's not > worth the effort. Yeah.. > >> I don't understand why pinctrl-single tries so hard to fit things into > >> one mold... > > > > Basically on many SoCs pinctrl is just the same exact control > > register repeated for each pin on the SoC: > > Right, I was just wondering why it forces one to have a function mask, > versus allowing it to be left out and thus making it possible to handle > also cases where the pins require different kinds of bit masks. Some of the bits are not usable typically. I think what you're describing could probably be done with a custom compatible plus struct pcs_soc_data. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
