On 03/07/2013 09:27 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > +the proper address for Will. Sorry... > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Linus, > > +dw_mmc folks and Stephen Warren : for context here, we are discussing > device tree bindings for pinmux for dw_mmc. The issue at hand is > whether they belong under the slot node or under the top-level device > node. There's no need for dynamic pin-muxing for MMC AFAIK, so I'd expect a single pinctrl state "default" to exist that covers any/all requirements of both slots' pinmux configuration. > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Linus Walleij > <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > I don't quite understand the above. Is it such that there is one > device, > > with two slots, and in the device model you have represented this > > two-slot device with a single struct device? > > Yes, that's the issue. That's dw_mmc that has been in the kernel for > a bit of time now (looks like Jan 2011) and has had a single struct > device for as long as I've been looking at it. > > Relevant links for convenience: > * > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > * > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsis-dw-mshc.txt > * > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi#n243 > * > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/cros5250-common.dtsi#n92 > > > > Have you considered just registering one device for each slot? > > > > That would make things quite a lot simpler, just a single pinctrl > > handle per device, right? > > I don't know why the original decision was made to just have one > struct device. ...that would be a pretty big code change at this > point, I think. > > ...I think the most important issue at hand is the device tree > bindings for pinmux on this device. It sounds like you are in > agreement that the best thing is to have a pinmux specified per-slot. > If the code is a bit awkward now (due to not having a struct device > per slot) then that's just something we have to live with. > > > -Doug > > -- 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
 |