* Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [120503 22:08]:
>
> In my mind in the driver we do not have to care how to list
> register/unregister the group. We just need to be able to do this
>
> pinctrl_register_group(...)
>
> or
>
> pinctrl_unregistewr_group(...)
>
> On at91 we have this type of controller
Ah I see. Yeah makes sense. Also I think we should let the pinctrl
core eventually manage the pins more too. Right now the pins are
a static array in the driver, which makes things unnecessarily
complex for the DT case. It would be nice to also have something like
pinctrl_register/unregister_pin instead of requiring them all
be registered while registering with the framework initially.
But all that can be improved later on once we get the binding down..
> one pin can have multiple function and each function can be on different pin
> and we need to program and represent each of them one by one
>
> And each pin have different parameter
>
> so I was thinking to do like on gpio
>
> uart {
> pin = < &pioA 12 {pararms} >
>
> }
Hmm I assume the "12" above the gpio number?
> and use macro as basicaly we are just this
>
> and this can be applied to tegra too as you will just refer the pin in this hw
> pin block
I was thinking of adding gpio eventually as a separate attribute with
something like the following. Here cam_d10 pin is used as gpio109:
cam_d10.gpio_109 {
pinctrl-simple,cells = <0xfa 0x104>; /* OMAP_PIN_INPUT | OMAP_MUX_MODE4 */
gpio = <&gpio4 13 0>; /* gpio109 */
};
The reasoning for this is that as we may not care about the gpio number
for all pins, it should be optional. Would that work for you?
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
