Hi Mark, On 20/02/2014 at 10:12:32 +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote : > >>>> NAK. Either this is a atmel,at91rm9200-pinctrl node or a simple-bus. Not > >>>> both; that doesn't make any sense. > >>>> > >>> Simply a copy paste, I'll fix that here and also the 6 other atmel > >>> dtsi includes. > >>> > >>> What is your preference for those using: > >>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9x5-pinctrl", "atmel,at91rm9200-pinctrl", > >>> "simple-bus"; ? > >> A node should by either a bus or a pinctrl node. > >> > >> If it has chidren then the simple-bus should be separated out into a > >> separate node. If there are no children simple-bus should go. > > > > Doing this clearly break backward compatibility (the current pinctrl > > drivers relies on > > gpio controller being subnodes of the pinctrl node), but I'm interested > > in how you would > > have represented this. > > Guys, just be warned, I do not plan to rework or even push for a rework > of the pinctrl driver anytime soon. > > So I am afraid but you will have to live with this DT representation of > pinctrl for quite some time (even if it doesn't make sense, sorry Mark)... >
Those bindings have been merged in july 2012 and like others, I fear we will definitely have to break backward compatibility when reworking those. So, in light of what Nicolas said, I've sent v3 taking into account all your other comments. I believe we have 3 at91sam9 SoCs that will enter the DT world for 3.15. I suggest that we finish the DT and CCF transition then we'll take some time to rework the pinctrl driver. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
