Re: Pinmux bindings proposal

[Shawn Guo]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 03:44:59AM +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
...
> > > The real problem is do we need to support individual pin mux Or still
> > > using virtual pin group?
> > > For the way Stephen proposed, we can only support individual pin mux
> > > Since IMX pins are not grouped together in HW.
> > >
> > I do not see any problem here.  If you look at the first column of 'mux'
> > property of node pinmux-usdhc1, it is a group of pins for usdhc1.
> > Isn't it one virtual pin group for usdhc1?
> > 
> If we treat the whole pins in 'mux' property as a group,
> There may be potential inconsistent issue since Tegra will treat each
> One in the list of 'mux' as a group.
> And it would be a problem for pinctrl core to parse it in a standard way.
> 
Based on my understanding, the 'group' given by 'mux' property may be
a group of pin/group defined by hardware, or mixing of the two.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/