Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] gpio driver for Intel Baytrail platforms

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Mathias Nyman
<mathias.nyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [Me]
>> I would still vote to put the thing in drivers/pinctrl anyway,
>> I am perfectly happy to house pure GPIO drivers there,
>> especially if they're obviously masking something more
>> pinctrl-like in reality, it will be way more flexible the day that
>> you just want to add "this one little quirk for this pin config
>> thing", then it'll fit just fine.
>>
>
> I'm fine with having it under drivers/pinctrl as a GPIO driver, either just
> as it is, or by using the pinctrl_gpio_range structure and helper functions
> such as gpio_to_pad(), once Christian Rupperts patch is accepted.

Christian's patch is merged into the pinctrl tree for v3.11.

> any naming preference?

> pinctrl-baytrail.c

Bingo!

Because the hardware is a pin controller after all.

I know there is some BIOS or ROM very much wanting it to look
simpler than it is, but it sure is a pin controller :-)

Thanks,
Linus Walleij
--
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/