On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 09:04:49AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > >> Ah, you're talking about pin muxing configuration, right? Yes, that >> GPIO binding deals with controllers, not pin mux. Pin mux is very >> much an SoC specific thing that isn't mapped easily to a generic >> binding. > > Yep. > >> On the 5200, I haven't attempted to describe pin-mux in the device >> tree at all, and have either expected firmware to set it up correctly, >> or fixed it up in the platform code. > > Yeah. And it's one of the things Tony commented on that firmware tends > to get wrong, seems like people aren't doing complete mux configs in > u-boot, etc. > > So, if it needs to be fixed up in platform code, there will (likely) be > need for board-specific code there anyway. A bummer, since the device > tree would otherwise make it real easy to bring up new boards without > kernel code changes. I didn't create a binding on the 5200 because I actually see very little buggy firmware in that regard (partially because I kept telling people to go fix their firmware). :-) If it ends up being the norm that the kernel has to fix it for a given SoC, then I would create an SoC-specific binding for pin mux configuration in the device tree so that some degree of common code can still fix it up. It should be feasible for board-specific code to be the exception, not the rule. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. -- 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
