linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] i2c: Add generic I2C multiplexer using pinctrl API

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4F9B1221.8090002@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:39:45 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
CC:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] i2c: Add generic I2C multiplexer using pinctrl API

On 04/25/2012 05:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 04/24/2012 02:09 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>
>>> From what I know, compatible-properties should not be linux-specific
>>> since devicetrees are OS independent. pinctrl-i2cmux sounds
>>> linux-specific to me.
>>>
>>> So, is such a binding acceptable meanwhile?
>>
>> To my mind, "pinctrl" has two meanings: (1) is the Linux internal API
>> (2) is the pinctrl bindings in
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl, which were admittedly
>> developed strongly based on Linux's pinctrl API needs, but I believe
>> should be completely agnostic to the pinctrl API, SW, OS, etc., and
>> hence can be considered a pure representation of hardware.
>>
>> As such, the "pinctrl" in "pinctrl-i2cmux" above refers to (2) above,
>> and can be considered a pure HW/binding term.
> 
> I second Stephens statement.
> 
> Now every OS in the world must start to think about these things
> as pin controllers. But tt's not like there is competing terminology
> anyway, so let's define this before we get into committee meetings...

Rob, Grant, could you please take a look at the binding at the start of
this thread and say if you're OK with the compatible naming, and the
binding in general? Thanks.
--
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/