From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinmux: Add TB10x pinmux driver Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 14:01:53 -0600 Message-ID: <518AAF31.8080502@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1365608728-30494-1-git-send-email-christian.ruppert@abilis.com> <516EEAA0.10906@wwwdotorg.org> <20130418090310.GA17636@ab42.lan> <20130429161725.GB30136@ab42.lan> <5182B557.4040804@wwwdotorg.org> <20130508164123.GA10248@ab42.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130508164123.GA10248@ab42.lan> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Ruppert Cc: Linus Walleij , Patrice CHOTARD , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Sascha Leuenberger , Pierrick Hascoet , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 05/08/2013 10:41 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote: ... > What do you think about the following modification to the pinctrl/GPIO > frameworks instead (not yet a formal patch, more a request for comment > to illustrate what I mean. If you agree, I will clean it up and submit a > proper patch after discussion). > > It adds a dt_gpiorange_xlate function to the pinctrl callbacks which > defaults to the conventional behaviour using kernel logical pin numbers. > However, pin controllers which provide more complex mechanisms can > define #gpio-range-cells and provide this callback in order to keep > Linux pin numbering inside the kernel. Can you provide an example of the DT content, and explain exactly what this patch does with it; what effect it has on the existing GPIO or pinctrl code?