Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] Documentation: ad5592r: Added devicetree bindings documentation

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 27/10/15 16:13, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 13/10/15 10:37, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Looks good to me, but as it is a little bit 'different' and we are
>> defining entirely new generic bindings (the channel modes stuff)
>> I would like some more input.  It might be overkill but we do
>> of course have the pinctl framework which covers this sort of
>> thing... Might be worth considering if using that to get the unified
>> bindings might make sense here...
>>
>> cc'd Linus in case he wants to comment on this.
>>
>> It would obviously be a very heavy weight solution to the problem
>> so I'm far from convinced it makes sense - or even fits the usecase
>> terrible well.  Just thought I'd mention the possibility.
> 
> There is something of a grey area between "definately pin control"
> and "some extra pin hardware duct-taped to something else".
> 
> I guess that is natural, life is full of grey areas...
> 
> Basically if there are plenty of pins and functions, local solutions
> to the problem will not scale. Then it is necessary to go ahead
> and implement full pin control. Especially for say a big BGA
> package or so with lots and lots of pins.
> 
> It is is a few pins or they just alter between similar functionality
> (like different graphic modes) I think local solutions are OK.
Thanks Linus.  Makes sense

--
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/