From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: dt: at91: new binding Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:07:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20150306170708.GR3989@piout.net> References: <1424943294-8805-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <54F9C2FE.8060804@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: Nicolas FERRE , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Linus Walleij , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Boris BREZILLON List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 07/03/2015 at 00:49:55 +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote= : > >=20 > > Sorry but NACK. > >=20 > > I don't want to manage another flavor of the pinmux biding with no = real > > benefit. I would have been good if we had it from day-1. Now it's t= oo late. >=20 > yes we do, we catch but a compiling time instead of RUNTIME which is = critical >=20 > so I=E2=80=99ll pass on the NACK >=20 If you are changing the binding, how about doing it right this time and completely drop the current mess? > >=20 > > Moreover, splitting a binding definition if you have a function giv= en by > > multiple banks can be weird and not well understood in regard to ou= r > > current group+function definition scheme (Cf. your last example). > >=20 >=20 > Others already do so and this is not complex at all >=20 --=20 Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html