[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbbVuuPMp__Ba+Ru=GAFLyUcahPakrsa6yjnBShq_0Bww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:47:24 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] gpio driver for Intel Baytrail platforms
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Mathias Nyman
<mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> [Me]
>> I would still vote to put the thing in drivers/pinctrl anyway,
>> I am perfectly happy to house pure GPIO drivers there,
>> especially if they're obviously masking something more
>> pinctrl-like in reality, it will be way more flexible the day that
>> you just want to add "this one little quirk for this pin config
>> thing", then it'll fit just fine.
>>
>
> I'm fine with having it under drivers/pinctrl as a GPIO driver, either just
> as it is, or by using the pinctrl_gpio_range structure and helper functions
> such as gpio_to_pad(), once Christian Rupperts patch is accepted.
Christian's patch is merged into the pinctrl tree for v3.11.
> any naming preference?
> pinctrl-baytrail.c
Bingo!
Because the hardware is a pin controller after all.
I know there is some BIOS or ROM very much wanting it to look
simpler than it is, but it sure is a pin controller :-)
Thanks,
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