Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephen Warren <> | Date | Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:36:08 -0800 | Subject | RE: Pinmux bindings proposal V2 |
| |
Tony Lindgren wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:09 PM: ... > I don't think we should try to pass the different possible states from > device tree. The pinmux/pinconf driver should know how to deal with that,
Somehow, the pinctrl driver needs to know how to implement each state. In general, I believe this will be board-specific.
Do you disagree with this assertion?
If the data is board-specific, I don't see how it can be represented anywhere but the device tree.
> and the driver using the mux should be able to communicate what it wants > to the pinmux/pinconf driver. If people really want to be able to pass > alternative mux states from device tree, they should be standard bindings > for things like active/idle/suspend/off.
As I've mentioned before, people have asked for driver-specific states to handle the case where e.g. drive strength must be adjusted based on clock rates of the interface. Again, I believe that's board-specific data since the actual values to use may be derived during board calibration, not SoC design.
Do you disagree that this data may be board specific?
-- nvpublic
| |