* Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [120514 11:42]: > 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. Yes. > > 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. Yeah let's see if we can come up with some better name. 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
