On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:44:29AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We talked about this a bit at Linaro connect. Outside of the more > > complex runtime-reconfiguration of pin mux, there is a general need > > for arbitrary initialization sequences to registers. Also, pretty > > much exactly what you need for tegra is needed for imx, omap and many > > others. The though was, rather than trying to come up with some kind > > of pinmux-specific binding for pin states, which could end up being > > very verbose if everything was split out into properties, we could > > instead have a binding for register initialization sequences. > > Something like this: > > > > pinmux-initseq = <reg1 value1> <reg1 value2> ...; > > > > And then add some macros for DTC to make it easier to define things > > like pinmux setup tables. Although the binding above is probably too > > simple and naive. > > This seems to break the philosophy of what the device tree should do > -- it should describe the hardware so that the driver will know how to > program it, not include the code itself? Arguably, yes, although it's a barrier that's been frequently broken by Apple already. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
