From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:04:56 -0800 Subject: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal In-Reply-To: References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF178E5D3160@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <4F2F6AE2.1040504@nvidia.com> <20120206190315.GU1426@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120206210456.GV1426@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Linus Walleij [120206 11:25]: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > So far the only > > change needed for pinctrl drivers containing no data is that > > we should make the string names optional and structure debugfs > > around the physical register addresses instead. I'm basically > > just setting the mux register physcal address as the pin name > > for now to work around this. > > OK please make a patch to do it really optional in the core if > you find the time, it seems like a good change anyway, because > it will make it possible to reduce some current pin name lists > quite easily. OK, will take a look at that. > If you need to change the layout of debugfs just do it. > > I actually had something like unnamed pins in the early patches > to register a bunch of anonymous pins ranges, so why not bring > it back in. Yeah it seems that the mux registers should be listed, it might require a little bit of thinking for cases where one register controls multiple pins. So maybe we need just a new entry for mux registers? Regards, Tony