[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaKWSAvMTr_5Krm02JAuB98Z420izgpF--0yuA240eK7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:36:12 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "Westerberg, Mika" <mika.westerberg@...el.com>
Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] pinctrl: add Intel BayTrail GPIO/pinctrl support
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Westerberg, Mika
<mika.westerberg@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:25:56AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> On 04/24/2014 06:58 AM, Westerberg, Mika wrote:
>> >>>No, that's my point. I was expecting the pinmux functions of the
>> >>>pinctrl driver are used by ACPI, but apparently they aren't, and
>> >>>that's why I'm asking.
>>
>> >Which functions?
>>
>> The functions in struct pinmux_ops, like get_function_groups. Will
>> these functions ever be called on an ACPI system?
>
> Well, if you have an ACPI system (like normal PC) it is perfectly fine to
> have pin controller/mux hardware there which is not dependent at all on
> ACPI.
>
> If you happen to have pin controller/mux driver that drives that hardware,
> I'm sure your pinmux functions gets called.
True as far as the driver itself goes.
Pin controllers are however configured into a certain state with
platform data or device tree data. This configuration would need
to be stored in ACPI to fill the equivalent role in such a system,
and that in turn implies some thought given to it during design
of any ACPI-pinctrl bindings.
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