On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:43:52AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ludovic Desroches
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>
> >> Note that in the recently introduced Mediatek pinctrl driver we used
> >> 'pinmux' for the
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ludovic Desroches
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>
>> Note that in the recently introduced Mediatek pinctrl driver we used
>> 'pinmux' for the property that you name 'pins' here. We probably want to
>> use the same name.
>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:43:52AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ludovic Desroches
ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Note that in the recently introduced Mediatek pinctrl driver we used
'pinmux'
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ludovic Desroches
ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Note that in the recently introduced Mediatek pinctrl driver we used
'pinmux' for the property that you name 'pins' here. We probably want to
use
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:46:42AM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> This driver fits most of my needs but I didn't do it in this way for the
> two previous reasons. If it is not an issue to add a new
> dt_node_to_map() implementation which should be quite close to the
> mediatek one, let's do it.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:55:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > > >Hi Stephen,
> > > >
> > > >On Mon,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:55:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:46:42AM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
This driver fits most of my needs but I didn't do it in this way for the
two previous reasons. If it is not an issue to add a new
dt_node_to_map() implementation which should be quite close to the
mediatek one, let's do it.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:07:45PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre
> wrote:
>
> > - no agreement on 3 points:
> > 1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
> > 2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
> > 3/ readability of a
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:07:45PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
- no agreement on 3 points:
1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
3/
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:55:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > >Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > >On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >>On 06/10/2015
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Ludovic Desroches
wrote:
> It is not the first time, there are discussions about it. Sascha sent a
> patch which fits part of my needs:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-January/318452.html
It would be helpful to have Sascha's review
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> - no agreement on 3 points:
> 1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
> 2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
> 3/ readability of a sysfs information
>
> - no way out on the generic pinctrl little changes that
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Ludovic Desroches
ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com wrote:
It is not the first time, there are discussions about it. Sascha sent a
patch which fits part of my needs:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-January/318452.html
It would be helpful
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com wrote:
- no agreement on 3 points:
1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
3/ readability of a sysfs information
- no way out on the generic pinctrl
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:55:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM,
Le 17/06/2015 17:55, Stephen Warren a écrit :
> On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
[..]
>> I have sent patches months ago trying to improve things by having
>> something more flexible. I don't think I introduce too big changes.
>> The only answers I got were from people thinking
Le 17/06/2015 17:55, Stephen Warren a écrit :
On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
[..]
I have sent patches months ago trying to improve things by having
something more flexible. I don't think I introduce too big changes.
The only answers I got were from people thinking that
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:55:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >Hi Stephen,
> >
> >On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >>>When having a controller which allows
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:55:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing,
On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
> >which groups a function can be used is a useless constraint since groups
> >are something
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless constraint since groups
are something virtual.
On 06/17/2015 06:38 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:58:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless constraint since groups
are something virtual.
This isn't true.
Irrespective of whether a particular piece of pinmux HW can
On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless constraint since groups
are something virtual.
This isn't true.
Irrespective of whether a particular piece of pinmux HW can
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless constraint since groups
are something virtual.
Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c | 58 +++---
When having a controller which allows per pin muxing, declaring with
which groups a function can be used is a useless constraint since groups
are something virtual.
Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c | 58
28 matches
Mail list logo
