[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120206235733.GY1426@atomide.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:57:33 -0800
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Dong Aisheng-B29396 <B29396@...escale.com>,
"Sascha Hauer (s.hauer@...gutronix.de)" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"cjb@...top.org" <cjb@...top.org>,
"Simon Glass (sjg@...omium.org)" <sjg@...omium.org>,
Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
"Grant Likely (grant.likely@...retlab.ca)"
<grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal
* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> [120206 14:44]:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
>
> >> I actually had something like unnamed pins in the early patches
> >> to register a bunch of anonymous pins ranges, so why not bring
> >> it back in.
> >
> > Yeah it seems that the mux registers should be listed, it might
> > require a little bit of thinking for cases where one register
> > controls multiple pins. So maybe we need just a new entry for
> > mux registers?
>
> I'm not sure if I'm following completely, if this is inside the devicetree-based
> driver file, would it work to just add a struct dentry * to the
> pinctrl_desc where you put a per-driver file?
I was thinking generic debufs entries for all drivers.
> Or maybe add extern void pinctrl_add_debugfs(struct dentry *) that adds
> a new file to the existing per-driver directory through the core and then
> have this add that file?
Sounds like you've thought it further than me already :)
Maybe that's the way to go to solve the one register for
multiple pins issue.
> Or did you mean that the core.c should be register-aware?
I was just thinking string name ignoring core.c, so that would
be the pinctrl_add_debugfs() option then. Do you see problems
with this approach?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists