From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: Pulls and drive strengths in the pinctrl world Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:06:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4040680.Aq1C9TECZX@flatron> References: <2118733.fzZiu9I5M5@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , linux-samsung-soc , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Thomas Abraham , Tomasz Figa , Simon Glass , Olof Johansson , Kukjin Kim List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 15 of May 2013 15:01:23 Doug Anderson wrote: > Tomasz, > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > This will be hard, since the phandle in interrupt-parent is > > represented by an IRQ domain in kernel code. One-interrupt IRQ > > domains seem a bit awkward to me. > > > > Since we are already going to modify the binding, let's think a bit > > more about this problem and try to figure out a solution that doesn't > > add any disadvantages (at least any significant) to avoid such > > situation in future again. > > I'm definitely not super familiar with the implementation at that > level of detail, so don't take my proposed syntax as something I've > thought all the way through. ...but hopefully you understand what I'm > getting at in terms of eliminating duplication? Yes. I don't like the current way too much either, duplication being one of the reasons. Best regards, Tomasz