From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:07:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: dt: at91: new binding In-Reply-To: References: <1424943294-8805-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <54F9C2FE.8060804@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20150306170708.GR3989@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/03/2015 at 00:49:55 +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote : > > > > Sorry but NACK. > > > > I don't want to manage another flavor of the pinmux biding with no real > > benefit. I would have been good if we had it from day-1. Now it's too late. > > yes we do, we catch but a compiling time instead of RUNTIME which is critical > > so I?ll pass on the NACK > If you are changing the binding, how about doing it right this time and completely drop the current mess? > > > > Moreover, splitting a binding definition if you have a function given by > > multiple banks can be weird and not well understood in regard to our > > current group+function definition scheme (Cf. your last example). > > > > Others already do so and this is not complex at all > -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com