From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] pinctrl: mvebu: kirkwood pinctrl driver Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:40:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20120916124015.GI5469@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <1344689809-6223-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <1347550912-18021-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <1347550912-18021-4-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20120916074652.GM28177@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120916074652.GM28177-g2DYL2Zd6BY@public.gmane.org> 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" To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Lior Amsalem , Russell King , linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Ben Dooks , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 09:46:52AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/marvell,kirkwood-pinctrl.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,279 @@ > > +* Marvell Kirkwood SoC pinctrl driver for mpp > > + > > +Please refer to marvell,mvebu-pinctrl.txt in this directory for common binding > > +part and usage. > > + > > +Required properties: > > +- compatible: "marvell,88f6180-pinctrl", > > + "marvell,88f6190-pinctrl", "marvell,88f6192-pinctrl", > > + "marvell,88f6281-pinctrl", "marvell,88f6282-pinctrl" > > + > > +This driver supports all kirkwood variants, i.e. 88f6180, 88f619x, and 88f628 > > Hi Sebastian > > The current MPP code determines for itself what chip it is running on. > It can then check if a pin configuration is valid for the current > run time environment. > > Here you are suggesting we have to put into the DT what chip we expect > to be on. > > What is the advantage of this, over getting the information from the > device itself? The DT should describe the hardware as accurately as possible. We can't always assume Linux will be the only thing the DT is handed off to. > If i wanted to mass convert all existing kirkwood DT boards over to > use pinctrl, im stuck at the very first step. I've no idea what chip > they use, it was not relevant before. Let's try to do the DT correctly, and create a migration path for kirkwood to work first, then migrate to using the DT fully. thx, Jason.