On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/12/2012 05:49 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> 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. Yep so this is what I have done for pinctrl-nomadik.c > 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. So this matches the pinctrl-u300.c/pinctrl-coh901.c design pattern. >> 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. Oh I didn't think of these. Hm from a generic world running Windows Mobile etc I take it that this is seen as simple mappings then? Yours, 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
