Re: [PATCH 3/6] pinctrl: single: Prepare for supporting SoC specific features

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [131008 05:03]:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Linus W,
> >
> > Any comments on the pinctrl patches 3 - 5 in this series?
> 
> I have no problems with this patch #3, as it is just changing syntax,
> not semantics.
> 
> The problems start with patch #4.
> 
> I am tormented with mixed feelings about this, because from one point of
> view I feel it is breaking the promise of pinctrl-single being a
> driver for platforms
> where a pin is controlled by a *single* register.

It is still in that same *single* register. There are interrupt enable
and interrupt status bits for *every* pin register on most omaps.
 
> If this was pinctrl-foo.c I would not have been so much bothered,
> but now it is something that was supposed to be self-contained and
> simple, pertaining to a single register, starting to look like something
> else.
>
> This is a bit like: "oh yeah just one register controls the pins, but under
> some circumstances I also want to mess with this register over here,
> and then this register over there ..." etc.

Not true. If it was some other register I would have set it up as
a separate driver under drivers/irqchip.
 
> I'd like Haojian to ACK this to proceed since he's also using this driver
> now. Then I feel better on continuing down this road ...
> 
> Then I have a lesser comment on patch #4 since it makes it possible
> for this pin controller to support wake-up interrupt, as I don't see how
> this plays out with front-end GPIO controllers, but let's discuss that
> in the context of that patch.

It's completely separate from the GPIO controller wake-up events.

Regards,

Tony