linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: MSM8974: Add pinctrl node

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, 8 Apr 2014 11:39:48 -0700
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@...sol.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: MSM8974: Add pinctrl node

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 08:46 AM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>>>
>>> >This patch adds that same exact information into the device tree.  Why
>>> >are we duplicating that information?  Why add it to the device tree when
>>> >it's already in the driver (and already working).
>
>
>> Probably. It was my natural way of thinking. Pin have a functions.
>> It is easier if I measure signals to just look at the device
>> tree file. What are you suggesting?
>
>
> Back in July, Qualcomm submitted a patch that added this information into
> the device tree:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=137185166100003&r=1&w=2
>
> However, this was rejected.  Now it appears that this information is again
> being added to the device tree, but it's being accepted.  What's different
> now?

The difference is that in the first proposal pins, groups and
functions where defined in DT, in the accepted proposal the devicetree
merely selects pins, functions and their configuration.

>
> Another problem is that these device tree changes makes it difficult to
> support ACPI.  It's easy to move information between the drivers and the
> device tree, because they're kept together.  It's not so easy with ACPI.
> I'm trying to add ACPI support to the 8x74 pinctrl driver, but it's a moving
> target.

The DT bindings for 8x74 is all standard pinctrl, so I presume that
what you should be looking at is how pinctrl and acpi is interacting,
not the specific case of 8x74...

Maybe Linus have some input on this?

Regards,
Bjorn
--
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/