From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:31:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V2 03/10] pinctrl: exynos: add exynos5260 SoC specific data In-Reply-To: <1389099548-14649-4-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> References: <1389099548-14649-1-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> <1389099548-14649-4-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> Message-ID: <3846194.a18yHpXxuP@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 07 January 2014 18:29:01 Rahul Sharma wrote: > From: Young-Gun Jang > > Add Samsung Exynos5260 SoC specific data to enable pinctrl > support for all platforms based on EXYNOS5260. > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey > Signed-off-by: Young-Gun Jang > Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma > Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K On a similar note to the comment about the platform patch, I think it would be good to extend the DT binding in a way that allows you to describe the differences between the SoCs without having to change the driver every time a new model comes out. We still have to maintain backwards compatibility with the existing bindings I suppose, but I'd rather not see new ones added like this. I realize that there is a tradeoff between having too much information in DT when it is always fixed, and having too much hardcoded in the driver, and at some point there was a conscious decision to do it like this, but I fear the tradeoff has changed with the number of EXYNOS implementations that really only differ in their pin banks. Arnd