From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:04:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20120206210456.GV1426@atomide.com> References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF178E5D3160@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <4F2F6AE2.1040504@nvidia.com> <20120206190315.GU1426@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Linus Walleij Cc: "cjb-2X9k7bc8m7Mdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , Dong Aisheng , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "Sascha Hauer (s.hauer-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org)" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , "kernel-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org * Linus Walleij [120206 11:25]: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > So far the only > > change needed for pinctrl drivers containing no data is that > > we should make the string names optional and structure debugfs > > around the physical register addresses instead. I'm basically > > just setting the mux register physcal address as the pin name > > for now to work around this. > > OK please make a patch to do it really optional in the core if > you find the time, it seems like a good change anyway, because > it will make it possible to reduce some current pin name lists > quite easily. OK, will take a look at that. > If you need to change the layout of debugfs just do it. > > I actually had something like unnamed pins in the early patches > to register a bunch of anonymous pins ranges, so why not bring > it back in. Yeah it seems that the mux registers should be listed, it might require a little bit of thinking for cases where one register controls multiple pins. So maybe we need just a new entry for mux registers? Regards, Tony