On 22 August 2012 22:39, Mitch Bradley <wmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry to interject on a topic that seems to have already been decided, > but I'm confused by one thing and would like clarification. I > understand that you need to use a GPIO-style specifier as a surrogate > for a pinmux specification - that much is clear. What is not clear is > why it's necessary to (ab)use the name "cd-gpios" for it. > > Why not use a different property name, e.g. "samsung,cd-pinmux-gpio = > <gpio-specifier>" for the "cd-gpios + samsung,sdhci-cd-internal" case? > Then both "samsung,sdhci-cdi-internal" and "samsung,sdhci-cd-external" > could go away. There would only be one system-dependent property > "samsung,cd-pinmux-gpio" whose name would make it clear that it's > conflating pinmuxing and gpios. Right, I agree. I will prepare the sdhci-s3c based on Chris's new generic binding patch and your suggestion. > > I think the scheme I propose would be clearer, less likely to confuse > other people who try to use the driver as a model, require less > hand-waving in the documentation, and easier to change to a proper > pinmuxing scheme should that become available later. Thanks for your time. Regards, Thomas. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |