[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaDC20FfQ2CebUKqySbPTGkk_QJhywZxabK1A5Zdsvvtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:51:54 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu.yj@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/42] SH pin control and GPIO rework
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> The idea behind these patches is to move SoC-specific pin control code from
> arch/ to drivers/pinctrl/ and use the Linux device model to instantiate the
> pin control device. This is required to add device tree support for the pin
> control device.
Ah, this looks nice :-)
> The SH7264 and SH7269 platforms have no gpiolib support so the PFC code can't
> be compiled for them. As the currently implemented arch-level pinmux support
> also depends on generic GPIO, we're moving from a situation where the code
> isn't used to a different situation where the code isn't used. I don't
> consider that as a regression.
That's OK, would be nice to get rid of this one day though.
I will try to go through and review patches individually. I'll
focus on pinctrl/GPIO mechanisms and trust you and Paul M
to know that the SH side of things are correct.
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