linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Add generic pinctrl-simple driver that supports omap2+ padconf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 May 2012 13:07:55 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: Add generic pinctrl-simple driver that
 supports omap2+ padconf

* Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> [120514 11:42]:
> On 05/12/2012 05:49 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Also, were you intending pinctrl-simple to actually be the GPIO
> >> controller itself? That'd be another case that one might consider fairly
> >> simple, but then extends to being gpio-simple as well as pinctrl-simple...
> > 
> > We have some pinctrl drivers implementing gpiolib too already,
> > and it's unavoidable I think, as some recent discussion about
> > matcing struct gpio_chip and pinctrl GPIO ranges shows.
> 
> I strongly believe we should only do this when the exact same HW module
> is both pinctrl and GPIO.
> 
> When there are separate HW modules, we should have separate drivers. The
> fact that the two drivers need to co-ordinate with each-other isn't a
> good argument to make them one driver.
> 
> And irrespective of how the drivers are structured, if there are two HW
> modules, we really need two separate nodes in DT to describe them, since
> the SW architecture (1 vs. 2 drivers) shouldn't influence the DT
> representation unduly.

Yes.
 
> > Maybe "-simple" isn't such a good name for this thing. Noone thinks
> > any kind of pin control is simple in any sense of the word anyway :-D
> > 
> > Tony, would pinctrl-dt-only.c be a better name perhaps?
> 
> That might be OK for the filename, but it doesn't seem like a useful
> change for the DT compatible value.

Yeah let's see if we can come up with some better name.

Regards,

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