From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Cercueil Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:31:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic Message-Id: <12dc62a7255bd453ff4e5e89f93ebc58@mail.crapouillou.net> List-Id: References: <27071da2f01d48141e8ac3dfaa13255d@mail.crapouillou.net> <20170125185207.23902-1-paul@crapouillou.net> <20170125185207.23902-2-paul@crapouillou.net> <20170130203617.hpljtcmzava3rq2n@rob-hp-laptop> In-Reply-To: <20170130203617.hpljtcmzava3rq2n@rob-hp-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Rob Herring Cc: Linus Walleij , Mark Rutland , Ralf Baechle , Ulf Hansson , Boris Brezillon , Thierry Reding , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Maarten ter Huurne , Lars-Peter Clausen , Paul Burton , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, james.hogan@imgtec.com Hi, > From the overlapping register addresses in the examples and this > description, it looks like the pinctrlr and gpio controller are 1 > block. > If so, then there should only be 1 node. Well, that's what I had until Linus W. just told me to do the opposite: > Just pull all these down two levels and make them one device > each instead of having them inside the pin controller node > like this. -Paul