On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Note that with device tree things get simpler for muxing as we can > get rid of the hardcoded grouping of pins in mux drivers. Instead of > hardcoded pingroups, the groups can be created dynamically based on > what the driver DT entries have. Yes, I know too little about DT to figure out how these should come in. > The reason why we want to avoid hardcoded pin groups is because trying > to map all the pad combinations in the pinmux driver is not a scalable > way to go. And it's not even possible at least on omaps because of the > huge number of combinations with alternative pins and multiple packages. Yes, that's a solid case! > FYI I'm playing with a DT based pinmux-simple.c driver that should > be pretty generic and work for all kinds of hardware hopefully. I love it. > It will be few days before I can post anything though, there are > some pinctrl fwk issues to deal with first. Like the hardcoded > pinmux_maps that assumes that dev entries are static. This means > that multiple instances of pinmux drivers won't work.. I'm not following, but I guess I will understand when I see the patches. The idea behind the current map concept is that you get either a string or struct device * to identify the pin controller and mapped device, that's as far as I thought it out, sorry for any inherent limitations, they're not intentional... Thanks, Linus Walleij -- 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
