Re: [PATCHv2 1/8] ARM: at91: Add at91sam9rl DT SoC support

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hi Mark,

On 20/02/2014 at 10:12:32 +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote :
> >>>> NAK. Either this is a atmel,at91rm9200-pinctrl node or a simple-bus. Not
> >>>> both; that doesn't make any sense.
> >>>>
> >>> Simply a copy paste, I'll fix that here and also the 6 other atmel
> >>> dtsi includes.
> >>>
> >>> What is your preference for those using:
> >>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9x5-pinctrl", "atmel,at91rm9200-pinctrl", "simple-bus"; ?
> >> A node should by either a bus or a pinctrl node.
> >>
> >> If it has chidren then the simple-bus should be separated out into a
> >> separate node. If there are no children simple-bus should go.
> > 
> > Doing this clearly break backward compatibility (the current pinctrl 
> > drivers relies on
> > gpio controller being subnodes of the pinctrl node), but I'm interested 
> > in how you would
> > have represented this.
> 
> Guys, just be warned, I do not plan to rework or even push for a rework
> of the pinctrl driver anytime soon.
> 
> So I am afraid but you will have to live with this DT representation of
> pinctrl for quite some time (even if it doesn't make sense, sorry Mark)...
> 

Those bindings have been merged in july 2012 and like others, I fear we
will definitely have to break backward compatibility when reworking
those. So, in light of what Nicolas said, I've sent v3 taking into
account all your other comments.

I believe we have 3 at91sam9 SoCs that will enter the DT world for 3.15.
I suggest that we finish the DT and CCF transition then we'll take some
time to rework the pinctrl driver.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/