Re: [PATCH] mfd: palmas: Add DVFS mux setting

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 07/30/2013 02:53 PM, Andrew Chew wrote:
>> On 07/27/2013 03:55 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:42 AM, Andrew Chew wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> [adding a third pinmux configuration property to Palmas's DT]
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this interact with the pinctrl driver that Laxman just sent
>>>>> for Palmas?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/26/141
>>>>> [PATCH 0/2] pinctrl: palmas: add pincontrol driver
>> ..
>>>> Abandoning this patch.
>> ...
>>> once we will have the pincontrol driver then mux pads are become
>> redundant.
>>
>> OK. The driver should probably operate like this then:
>>
>> * During probe(), parse the ti,mux-pad* parameters, if present, and apply
>> them. This is needed to maintain compatibility with old DTs that may contain
>> these properties.
>>
>> * At the end of probe(), register the pinctrl driver. If standard pinctrl
>> properties are present in DT, these will then be applied. These may override
>> the values set by any ti,mux-pad* properties if they were present.
>>
>> Also, we should remove, or mark deprecated, the ti,mux-pad* properties in
>> the binding document when adding pinctrl support.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.  The fate of my patch hasn't really been discussed, though.
> Can we apply it, to make the ti,mux-pad* stuff complete?

Oh, I thought you said you were dropping it. I don't see a need to apply
it if the correct approach is Laxman's pinctrl driver.