On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 09:29:38AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> [130613 08:35]:
> > No. If we go down that road *anything* that is connected to a > > pad becomes part of the pinctrl subsystem, then pinctrl-single > > becomes some kind of hardware abstraction or BIOS, and that > > is *not* the intent. It is only supposed to deal with the bits > > there that are 100% related to what pinctrl does, nothing else. > Sounds like the way to go is to do a standalone regulator driver that > optionally uses pinctrl-single,bits. But only for the bits in the PBIAS > register that are 100% related to pinctrl. > In any case the PBIAS regulator driver should be a separate driver > as it may need to be a child of the SCM driver for PM needs in the > future. This all seems sensible to me.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
