On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:46:31AM +0000, Chris Brandt wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > So, I guess what direction to take depends on whether or not we're going > > to see more hardware with a per-pin configuration that would benefit from > > this new rz-pfc driver (it seems so) and if this justify splitting sh-pfc > > in two, a group-based one for R-Car devices (and all devices there > > already) and a new pin-based one. > > Well, since I'm the one with the "renesas.com" email address, I'll try to > see if I can figure out if the R-Car PFC can be changed to something else for > R-Car Gen4. Same goes for RZ/G. Sometimes the chip designers just keep doing > the same thing over and over again because they don't get any feedback from > the SW guys. > > > > Or maybe we can tie pin-based configuration in sh-pfc and it's me not > > seeing how to do that. > > At some point....we do need to leave the "sh-" name behind as I don't really > see much of a future for SH4 devices. Using something like pinctrl-renesas > is probably a better name. Although, anyone who's watched the semiconductor > business over the years knows that names never stay the same. (sigh) FWIW I agree "renesas-" makes more sense than "sh-" for all Renesas ARM based SoCs.
