Re: Tegra pinmux Device Tree support

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

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@secretlab.ca> 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