On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I do think that you should keep Linus Walleij on Cc in these emails, since > he first started pushing for a common pinmux layer, and we need to make > sure that the binding works for all SoCs, not just for tegra. Sorry for slipping off the pinmux stuff, I will make it my goal to recap discussion and try to post a new patchset this week. Concepts have grown, I see Stephen have created the new concept of e.g. bias groups which is a real good idea One problem is that I wanted to start out small with the pinctrl subsystem, and now it looks like it has to do a *lot* of stuff from day 1 to be of any use ... One specific thing worries me: Grant asked me to make sure to NOT create a global pin number space for the pinmuxes (and thus pinctrl). This means that in order to proceed, mappings of pinmux groups or pincontrol (such as bias) groups, each device using such an entity need to reference the intended pincontroller/mux instance. Say mmc instance 0 need pingroup foo on pincontroller bar means that there must be a specific reference from mmc.0:s struct device * to pinctrl bar:s struct device *. Maybe this is peanuts in DT, sorry not enough insight. I wonder if this has bearing on how the device tree need to be structured to be future proof? (Hopefully not.) Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
