On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> When we're using Device Tree to enable GPIO drivers we're forced to be > OS agnostic, thus we are forbidden use names like pinctrl as they are > specific only to Linux. Oh that depends. I have hade lectures on pin control at the embedded systems conference and there I treat it as a neutral term referring to this kind of electronic constructions. However how something is established in OF ontology I don't know so you might be right there, but you're making it sound like Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ should not exist and all those bindings be moved to gpio or something if the assumption that "pin control" or the abbreviation pinctrl is a Linux-specific term. (Which is not my interpretation.) > However, when we are registering devices using > internal systems such as MFD or platform registration, we can use such > terminology. In this case we can and should use the platform device ID > mechanism to specify which device we wish to utilise by detailing > pinctrl-<device_name>. > > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]> The commit message should state what regression it is actually solving. Which is that when using a non-DT boot, the ABx500 pinctrl devices are not probed, right? Apart from the commit message: Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> On the patch as such. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
