On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi George, > > On 7 October 2015 at 16:29, George McCollister > <george.mccollis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Instead of having x86-pinctrl work separately from ich6-gpio have it >> work underneath ich6-gpio. This removes redundant configuration and will >> allow the addition of shared bank settings in future commits. >> >> Signed-off-by: George McCollister <george.mccollis...@gmail.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/dts/minnowmax.dts | 96 +++++++++--------- >> arch/x86/include/asm/gpio.h | 1 - >> board/intel/minnowmax/minnowmax.c | 9 +- >> doc/device-tree-bindings/gpio/intel,ich6-gpio.txt | 14 +++ >> .../gpio/intel,x86-pinctrl.txt | 17 ++-- >> drivers/gpio/intel_ich6_gpio.c | 107 >> ++++++++------------- >> 6 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 doc/device-tree-bindings/gpio/intel,ich6-gpio.txt > > Conceptually pinmux and GPIO are different concepts. What is the need > to make pinctrl a subset of GPIO? In some ways the opposite would make > more sense. > > Perhaps instead we should have a pinctrl driver?
Yeah, I think you're right. I think the only things you'd want the pinctrl driver to touch would be mode-func, pull-assign and pull-strength. The gpio driver would unconditionally set do "ich6_gpio_set_function(dev, gpio_offset, 1);" if the gpio was setup and you'd just need a way of setting direction and output value in device tree. Is there already sane structure defined we could copy or should I invent something? This is pretty low on my priority list but I might be able to get around to it in my spare time if you think it's the way to go. > > Regards, > Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
