On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Oops missed this: > Hence I think we should not use generic pin properties, but consider these > settings to be part of pinmux configuration. > As having large tables in the driver is undesirable, I think storing the > settings in the "pinmux" property (by encoding them as flags passed to the > RZA1_PINMUX() macro) is our best option. I think it is better to have large tables in the driver in this case. It is the lesser evil. Having unintelligible and hard to grasp stuff in the device tree that no user will understand or dare to touch is not good, then it is better to have it with the code, where it is being used, so the developers of the driver can see it when they are dealing with this (quirky) hardware. As you say this is actually fixing hardware bugs, we can expect these quirky tables to be gone in the next hardware generation, right? Then the right place for it is in the quirky driver for the quirky first-generation hardware. Yours, Linus Walleij
