From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:07:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH/RFC] ARM: shmobile: Disallow PINCTRL without GPIOLIB In-Reply-To: References: <20130318135818.23765.51686.sendpatchset@w520> <21658140.49USZQOU99@avalon> Message-ID: <2575027.16EVpHnJzT@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Linus, On Tuesday 09 April 2013 10:06:45 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> About this issue, the fact that selecting PINCTRL without GPIO results > >> in compile error makes me think that something needs slight adjustment > >> in the PFC code. > > > > The above errors come from the pinctrl core (although the PFC driver might > > not compile either in this case). Linus, what's your opinion on this ? Do > > we want to support systems with pinctrl but without gpiolib ? > > Yes. It is perfectly legal to have pin controllers that do not correlate > GPIO ranges. > > Does commit 2afe8229687ec24cbc07e78449a588bb8b68f858 > "pinctrl: core: add dependence of GPIOLIB" > by Haojian fix this issue? Yes it does. I've just sent a patch that makes GPIOLIB support optional in the PFC driver. Magnus, with these two, should we revert 6722f6cb763203cab775297b6e9d00834af0d6d7 ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart