On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Monday 12 of August 2013 12:34:48 Mark Brown wrote: > > I'd expect that to interact badly with the pinmuxing - unless the device > > is disabled it'll try to grab its pins on probe which is not going to be > > a good idea unless it is actually wired up for use in the system. Or is > > there some other mechanism for handling that? > Ah, good point. Now I wonder whether pinctrl nodes shouldn't be considered > board-specific and specified in board-level dts instead? It seems a bit cleaner to use the current mechanism in that it stops the device appearing at all and hence repeated efforts to probe, plus a simple enable is less error prone, the way these SoCs are designed you don't have to pick which pinmux is in use for most of the IPs. Where there are multiple options it does seem like a good approach though. Tastes may differ though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
