On 05/12/2012 05:49 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Also, were you intending pinctrl-simple to actually be the GPIO >> controller itself? That'd be another case that one might consider fairly >> simple, but then extends to being gpio-simple as well as pinctrl-simple... > > We have some pinctrl drivers implementing gpiolib too already, > and it's unavoidable I think, as some recent discussion about > matcing struct gpio_chip and pinctrl GPIO ranges shows. I strongly believe we should only do this when the exact same HW module is both pinctrl and GPIO. When there are separate HW modules, we should have separate drivers. The fact that the two drivers need to co-ordinate with each-other isn't a good argument to make them one driver. And irrespective of how the drivers are structured, if there are two HW modules, we really need two separate nodes in DT to describe them, since the SW architecture (1 vs. 2 drivers) shouldn't influence the DT representation unduly. > Maybe "-simple" isn't such a good name for this thing. Noone thinks > any kind of pin control is simple in any sense of the word anyway :-D > > Tony, would pinctrl-dt-only.c be a better name perhaps? That might be OK for the filename, but it doesn't seem like a useful change for the DT compatible value. -- 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
