Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:10:55 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] pinmux: Add TB10x pinmux driver |
| |
On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Christian Ruppert >> <christian.ruppert@abilis.com> wrote: >>> [Me] >>>> I don't see any of the port concept creeping into the device tree >>>> in this version and that is how I think it should be kept: >>>> the "port" particulars is a thing for the driver and not the >>>> device tree. ... >>> In the driver under discussion, pin groups are defined for every >>> "interface" to make sure that interfaces can be requested in an >>> orthogonal way by different modules and modules don't have to be "aware" >>> of which interfaces are grouped into which port (and which other modules >>> request which other interfaces). A request either succeeds or fails. >>> Resource management (which interfaces can be mapped simultaneously) is >>> done inside the pinctrl driver. >> >> OK > > This actually looks 100% coherent with Documentation/pinctrl.txt. But > then I don't understand Stephen's request to introduce the concept of > "ports" in the device tree. IMHO ports are a hardware limitation which > should be managed inside the pinctrl driver and if possible not leak > out of it. Also (as stated above), the concept of "ports" does not even > exist in the pinmux framework so why introduce it for DT? > > I might have thoroughly misunderstood you here, Stephen. Please be > patient with me and explain once more.
I don't think I asked for ports to be represented in DT. Do you have more context?
| |