From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm/mx5: parse iomuxc pad configuratoin from device
	tree
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:02:15 -0600
Message-ID: <20110731040215.GJ24334@ponder.secretlab.ca>
References: <1311606467-28985-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
	<1311606467-28985-2-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
	<20110725204630.GD26735@ponder.secretlab.ca>
	<20110726024354.GI21641@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110726024354.GI21641-+NayF8gZjK2ctlrPMvKcciBecyulp+rMXqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/devicetree-discuss>,
	<mailto:devicetree-discuss-request-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:devicetree-discuss-request-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss>,
	<mailto:devicetree-discuss-request-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
To: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, patches-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:43:55AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 02:46:30PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:07:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > The current linux code has each pin config simply a u64.  Now, an
> > engineer certainly wouldn't be asked to write raw u64 values, but we
> > could add some form of #define or macro syntax to dtc so that the
> > symbolic names currently used in the board.c file would continue to
> > work.
> 
> I was told that the binding should not be bonded to Linux
> implementation.  Now I'm told to go the opposite direction? ;)

Nope; it's perfectly valid to use the current Linux implementation for
inspiration, since a real implementation can be proven to actually
/work/.  :-)  However, the binding must be documented from the
perspective of how the hardware works, not from the perspective of
what Linux currently wants.

g.