From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753614Ab2D0Vjv (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:39:51 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:54781 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751679Ab2D0Vjt (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:39:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4F9B1221.8090002@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:39:45 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Likely , Rob Herring CC: Linus Walleij , Wolfram Sang , Jean Delvare , Ben Dooks , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] i2c: Add generic I2C multiplexer using pinctrl API References: <1335289664-21383-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20120424200929.GC30172@pengutronix.de> <4F9714F4.2060400@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/25/2012 05:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Stephen Warren 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.