[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c3dad3ce852435fba127e8436f0e30f@BN1BFFO11FD047.protection.gbl>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:06:45 -0800
From: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
To: "Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@...sol.com>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@...ymobile.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...pv.it>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
<linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] pinctrl: pinconf-generic: Allow driver to specify DT
params
Hi Ivan,
On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 09:35AM +0200, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 08:22 -0800, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also, I hope all my changes here don't break the current behavior. So,
> > those 27 driver should still be able to do what they currently do. But I
> > hope they could migrated over to use the generic bindings only in the
> > longer term, so that these custom properties disappear.
> >
> > > > The pinctrl driver just assembles
> > > > some data structure that has the information regarding custom properties
> > > > and the core handles the rest.
> > >
> > > Yup, that is nice. What will be really nice if it also handle custom,
> > > "function", "groups" and "pins" properties. Otherwise most of the drivers
> > > will not be able to benefit from this.
> >
> > Why would you still need those?
>
> I don't need them :-). The point was that still majority of the drivers
> will have custom parsing functions. It would be nice if we could fix
> that too. I do understand that using custom "pins", "functions"... is
> something which is deprecated, but if core parsing functions allow
> passing custom strings for above purposes, in a similar way as your
> proposal, it will be easier for those drivers to migrate, I believe.
This does sound much more like a feature request than a fundamental
problem with the implementation, now. And like Laurent's feature
request, I'd like to turn this down. Otherwise this just gets hold up by
feature requests blocking pinctrl-zynq.
I think the interesting questions are:
1. Does it break any current user?
2. Is there anything fundamentally preventing adding your feature at
some later time as part of such a migration you describe?
Thanks,
Sören
--
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