[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbpBZqUUwxwF8o8P1P9yknY7SRSzGmYsa3kQ1JH=QNJ7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:51:55 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>, B29396@...escale.com,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, dongas86@...il.com, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
thomas.abraham@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] pinctrl: Downgrade pinctrl_get warning when no maps
are found
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com> wrote:
> This may be perfectly legitimate. An IP block may get re-used
> across SoCs. Not all of those SoCs may need pinmux settings for the
> IP block, e.g. if one SoC dedicates pins to that function but
> another doesn't. The driver won't know this, and will always
> attempt to set up the pinmux. The mapping table defines whether any
> HW programming is actually needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
This is equivalent to providing dummy pincontrollers as was on my
TODO for a while admittedly.
For consistency with regulators it would maybe be better to have
optional dummy pin controllers but after thinking a bit about it
I think this is more helpful, so I applied it anyway.
However I would invite more opinions...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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