From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:37:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v3 5/9] document: devicetree: bind pinconf with pin-single In-Reply-To: <5092B9A0.9000204@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1351724661-29050-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@gmail.com> <1351724661-29050-6-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@gmail.com> <5092B9A0.9000204@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20121102163752.GV15766@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Stephen Warren [121101 11:06]: > On 10/31/2012 05:04 PM, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > Add comments with pinconf & gpio range in the document of > > pinctrl-single. > > I'd tend to suggest separating the series to add GPIO range support and > pinconf support, especially since didn't Tony suggest a separate driver > for pinconf? Perhaps that was just for non-generic properties. Well I was just thinking setting them up as separate driver instances for the register ranges supporting pinconf and not supporting pinconf. This combined with some pinconf property parsed during pinctrl-single.c probe time allows saving lots of unnecessary parsing of properties for register ranges that don't support pinconf. At least for omaps we have few hundred registers that don't support pinconf, and then some separate random register that do. Regards, TOny