Re: [PATCH 2/4] pinmux: Add TB10x pinmux driver

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Christian Ruppert
>> <christian.ruppert@abilis.com> wrote:
>>> [Me]
>>>> I don't see any of the port concept creeping into the device tree
>>>> in this version and that is how I think it should be kept:
>>>> the "port" particulars is a thing for the driver and not the
>>>> device tree.
...
>>> In the driver under discussion, pin groups are defined for every
>>> "interface" to make sure that interfaces can be requested in an
>>> orthogonal way by different modules and modules don't have to be "aware"
>>> of which interfaces are grouped into which port (and which other modules
>>> request which other interfaces). A request either succeeds or fails.
>>> Resource management (which interfaces can be mapped simultaneously) is
>>> done inside the pinctrl driver.
>>
>> OK
> 
> This actually looks 100% coherent with Documentation/pinctrl.txt. But
> then I don't understand Stephen's request to introduce the concept of
> "ports" in the device tree. IMHO ports are a hardware limitation which
> should be managed inside the pinctrl driver and if possible not leak
> out of it. Also (as stated above), the concept of "ports" does not even
> exist in the pinmux framework so why introduce it for DT?
> 
> I might have thoroughly misunderstood you here, Stephen. Please be
> patient with me and explain once more.

I don't think I asked for ports to be represented in DT. Do you have
more context?