Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal

[Tony Lindgren]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [120206 11:25]:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > So far the only
> > change needed for pinctrl drivers containing no data is that
> > we should make the string names optional and structure debugfs
> > around the physical register addresses instead. I'm basically
> > just setting the mux register physcal address as the pin name
> > for now to work around this.
> 
> OK please make a patch to do it really optional in the core if
> you find the time, it seems like a good change anyway, because
> it will make it possible to reduce some current pin name lists
> quite easily.

OK, will take a look at that.

> If you need to change the layout of debugfs just do it.
> 
> I actually had something like unnamed pins in the early patches
> to register a bunch of anonymous pins ranges, so why not bring
> it back in.

Yeah it seems that the mux registers should be listed, it might
require a little bit of thinking for cases where one register
controls multiple pins. So maybe we need just a new entry for
mux registers?

Regards,

Tony
--
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/