Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: Add support for additional dynamic states

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> [130719 11:59]:
> On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > 
> > I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state()
> > when no active state is defined.
> 
> Yes, I think that will work, since the active state cannot exist before
> this new scheme is in place.

Right.
 
> But, this needs to be very clearly spell out in the DT binding
> documentation: If you have states default/idle/sleep, they're complete
> alternatives, whereas if you have states default/active/idle/sleep, the
> latter 3 are alternatives that build on top of the first. I foresee mass
> confusion, but perhaps I'm being pessimistic.

I'm hoping we can automate the runtime PM handling with default/active/idle
completely from the consumer driver point of view. And then when that's
working, we can probably deprecate any runtime PM related handling using
pinctr_select_state() and print warnings. And we can also improve the
documentation so no new users will use the default/idle/sleep for runtime
PM unless they really want to.

Regards,

Tony