Re: [PATCH V2] i2c: Add generic I2C multiplexer using pinctrl API

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 04/25/2012 05:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 04/24/2012 02:09 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>
>>> From what I know, compatible-properties should not be linux-specific
>>> since devicetrees are OS independent. pinctrl-i2cmux sounds
>>> linux-specific to me.
>>>
>>> So, is such a binding acceptable meanwhile?
>>
>> To my mind, "pinctrl" has two meanings: (1) is the Linux internal API
>> (2) is the pinctrl bindings in
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl, which were admittedly
>> developed strongly based on Linux's pinctrl API needs, but I believe
>> should be completely agnostic to the pinctrl API, SW, OS, etc., and
>> hence can be considered a pure representation of hardware.
>>
>> As such, the "pinctrl" in "pinctrl-i2cmux" above refers to (2) above,
>> and can be considered a pure HW/binding term.
> 
> I second Stephens statement.
> 
> Now every OS in the world must start to think about these things
> as pin controllers. But tt's not like there is competing terminology
> anyway, so let's define this before we get into committee meetings...

Rob, Grant, could you please take a look at the binding at the start of
this thread and say if you're OK with the compatible naming, and the
binding in general? Thanks.