From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] ARM: NUC900: Add nuc970 machine support Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:23:32 +0200 Message-ID: <7624955.nn13su4oq1@wuerfel> References: <1468135649-19980-1-git-send-email-vw@iommu.org> <57847278.8000408@iommu.org> <578498E7.4080709@iommu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <578498E7.4080709@iommu.org> Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wan Zongshun Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net, Wan Zongshun , Daniel Lezcano , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de, Thomas Gleixner , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:14:47 PM CEST Wan Zongshun wrote: > On 2016=E5=B9=B407=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5 12:30, Wan Zongshun wrote: > > > > > > On 2016=E5=B9=B407=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5 00:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 3:27:21 PM CEST Wan Zongshun wrote: > >>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_SOC_NUC970),) > >>> obj-y :=3D irq.o time.o mfp.o gpio.o c= lock.o > >>> obj-y +=3D clksel.o dev.o cpu.o > >>> +endif > >>> # W90X900 CPU support files > >> > >> When mfp.o is disabled like this, I get a link error in two driver= s > >> using the exported interface: > >> > >> ERROR: "mfp_set_groupg" [drivers/spi/spi-nuc900.ko] undefined! > >> ERROR: "mfp_set_groupi" [drivers/input/keyboard/w90p910_keypad.ko] > >> undefined! > > > > Why remove mfp modules? this multifunction pin driver should be use= d for > > those two drivers, if no mfp_set_groupX, I don't think driver can w= ork. > > > > Now mfp has standard driver subsystem? > > > >> > >> Any idea for a better migration strategy? >=20 > Arnd, If you still think the mfp should be removed, we can send a ser= ies=20 > patches to instead of using mfp interface quickly, and do mfp set in=20 > local driver. Do you think it is ok? I don't think setting it locally in the driver is a good idea. In the long run, this should go through the pinctrl framework, but there is no need to implement that right away. Until then, I think using the existing mfp.o code is fine, it will just need to be adapted slightly to understand the DT based device names. Arnd