From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawn.guo@linaro.org (Shawn Guo) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:26:51 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: add pinctrl-mxs support In-Reply-To: References: <1334823125-24159-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20120421164713.GA3408@das-ThinkPad-X61> <20120422163255.GD26306@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120423074702.GD24843@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> <20120423144623.GU26306@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120424034010.GA32166@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> <20120424040520.GC26306@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20120424132648.GF26306@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 03:07:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > Hm, that's pretty interesting - but are imx and mxs even going to use the > same driver then? Maybe I'm not following - are they similar > in all other aspects than for this pin config stuff? > The mach-mxs (i.MX23 and i.MX28) is a totally different sub-architecture from mach-imx. Freescale acquired it from SigmaTel a few years back. These two sub-architectures have completely different pin controllers. So, no, they are not going to use the same pinctrl driver but two different ones, pinctrl-mxs and pinctrl-imx. The only common aspect is both two controllers only supports pin basis configuration (no hardware pingroup). I think many other sub-architectures including omap are same on this aspect. > Whether to use properties or raw values or not I cleverly leave up > to the platform to define and solve, unless they want to use > the generic pinprops library. > That's my position too. -- Regards, Shawn