From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic Desroches Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:00:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20150610150000.GR25800@odux.rfo.atmel.com> References: <1430729776-27797-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <556F01CC.8020305@atmel.com> <5578465A.9090503@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5578465A.9090503@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: Linus Walleij , Nicolas Ferre , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Ludovic Desroches , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:14:50AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/10/2015 01:33 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >>Le 04/05/2015 10:56, Ludovic Desroches a =E9crit : > >>> > >>>The way pins, groups and functions are tied is too constraining fo= r some > >>>controllers. It concerns mainly the ones we don't care about group= s and > >>>functions, each pin can be muxed to any functions. > >>>The goal of these two patches is too remove some of the constraint= s. > >>> > >>>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 usin= g generic > >>>pinconf so I am not sure that I don't break something... > >>> > >>> > >>>Ludovic Desroches (4): > >>> pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controller= s > >>> 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 commen= t 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? >=20 > I don't have the patch in my list archive, which goes back 60 days. >=20 > Judging purely by the patch description, the patch sounds incorrect. = There's > nothing in pinctrl that prevents a particular pin controller from sup= porting > all mux functions on all pins or groups. Simply return the same list = of > functions for every pin. Maybe my description is not accurate. I'll resend it. Ludovic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html