[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <534D0370.50108@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:01:20 +0300
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
CC: Linus <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] pinctrl: add Intel BayTrail GPIO/pinctrl support
On 04/14/2014 06:11 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 02:52 AM, Mathias Nyman wrote:
>>>
>>
>> This was the conclusion we reached after some discussion with Linus W.
>> Initially this was just a GPIO driver, but Linus correctly spotted that
>> Baytrail has many pinctrl-like features (like pin muxing, etc) that we
>> might need to address in the future.
>>
>> threads where this was discussed:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136994203308585&w=2
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137113578604763&w=2
>
> So this is the interesting part:
>
>> We expect BIOS to set all pin configurations correctly.
>
> This device will only be used on an ACPI system, right? And isn't ACPI
> supposed to hide all the pinctrl programming from the OS? I thought
> that was the whole point behind ACPI and the reason why ARM64 isn't
> going to use device trees.
>
This was my starting point as well, and the driver was initially
submitted as a GPIO driver. But Linus W. suggested pinctrl instead, and
as he's the maintainer of both those subsystem I trust his judgment.
-Mathias
--
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