On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 08:06 -0800, S?ren Brinkmann wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 09:35AM +0200, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 08:22 -0800, S?ren Brinkmann wrote: > > > > > > Also, I hope all my changes here don't break the current behavior. So, > > > those 27 driver should still be able to do what they currently do. But I > > > hope they could migrated over to use the generic bindings only in the > > > longer term, so that these custom properties disappear. > > > > > > > > The pinctrl driver just assembles > > > > > some data structure that has the information regarding custom properties > > > > > and the core handles the rest. > > > > > > > > Yup, that is nice. What will be really nice if it also handle custom, > > > > "function", "groups" and "pins" properties. Otherwise most of the drivers > > > > will not be able to benefit from this. > > > > > > Why would you still need those? > > > > I don't need them :-). The point was that still majority of the drivers > > will have custom parsing functions. It would be nice if we could fix > > that too. I do understand that using custom "pins", "functions"... is > > something which is deprecated, but if core parsing functions allow > > passing custom strings for above purposes, in a similar way as your > > proposal, it will be easier for those drivers to migrate, I believe. > > This does sound much more like a feature request than a fundamental > problem with the implementation, now. And like Laurent's feature > request, I'd like to turn this down. Otherwise this just gets hold up by > feature requests blocking pinctrl-zynq. > I think the interesting questions are: > 1. Does it break any current user? > 2. Is there anything fundamentally preventing adding your feature at > some later time as part of such a migration you describe? Well, as I said, this is just my opinion. Is up to Linus to decide. Regards, Ivan
