From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966704Ab2EOUIC (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 16:08:02 -0400 Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:22552 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966025Ab2EOUH7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 16:07:59 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 98.234.237.12 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18KGRogz+D4jUtbjmraAYBf Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:07:55 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Stephen Warren Cc: Linus Walleij , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Add generic pinctrl-simple driver that supports omap2+ padconf Message-ID: <20120515200754.GD17852@atomide.com> References: <20120504150342.GI5140@atomide.com> <20120504153251.GE7788@game.jcrosoft.org> <20120504163420.GA5613@atomide.com> <4FA42631.6060304@wwwdotorg.org> <20120504220809.GW5613@atomide.com> <4FAAD141.3090306@wwwdotorg.org> <20120509204925.GV5088@atomide.com> <4FABF553.20601@wwwdotorg.org> <4FB1513A.4070002@wwwdotorg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FB1513A.4070002@wwwdotorg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Warren [120514 11:42]: > On 05/12/2012 05:49 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > >> Also, were you intending pinctrl-simple to actually be the GPIO > >> controller itself? That'd be another case that one might consider fairly > >> simple, but then extends to being gpio-simple as well as pinctrl-simple... > > > > We have some pinctrl drivers implementing gpiolib too already, > > and it's unavoidable I think, as some recent discussion about > > matcing struct gpio_chip and pinctrl GPIO ranges shows. > > I strongly believe we should only do this when the exact same HW module > is both pinctrl and GPIO. > > When there are separate HW modules, we should have separate drivers. The > fact that the two drivers need to co-ordinate with each-other isn't a > good argument to make them one driver. > > And irrespective of how the drivers are structured, if there are two HW > modules, we really need two separate nodes in DT to describe them, since > the SW architecture (1 vs. 2 drivers) shouldn't influence the DT > representation unduly. Yes. > > Maybe "-simple" isn't such a good name for this thing. Noone thinks > > any kind of pin control is simple in any sense of the word anyway :-D > > > > Tony, would pinctrl-dt-only.c be a better name perhaps? > > That might be OK for the filename, but it doesn't seem like a useful > change for the DT compatible value. Yeah let's see if we can come up with some better name. Regards, Tony