From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:33:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers In-Reply-To: <556F01CC.8020305@atmel.com> References: <1430729776-27797-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <556F01CC.8020305@atmel.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 04/05/2015 10:56, Ludovic Desroches a ?crit : >> >> The way pins, groups and functions are tied is too constraining for some >> controllers. It concerns mainly the ones we don't care about groups and >> functions, each pin can be muxed to any functions. >> The goal of these two patches is too remove some of the constraints. >> >> I have added the prototype of a pin controller and device tree to show the >> way I want to use these changes. I couldn't test it on boards using generic >> pinconf so I am not sure that I don't break something... >> >> >> Ludovic Desroches (4): >> pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers >> pinctrl: introduce complex pin description > > Linus, > > Ludovic sent this series nearly one month ago. It was posted after a RFC > series on the same topic two months ago. As we don't see any comment on > neither of them we assume that it's okay to include them. It's a quite big patch and I need help reviewing it and thinking of some possible consequences. Stephen, can you give me a hand with this? Yours, Linus Walleij