On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:17:22AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > [... and so on for the other groups ... ] > > I'm confused now :-) . Current linux-next [0] shows the pin-settings as part > of imx6sl.dtsi - a way a lot of other architectures organize their pingroups > too, with the board file only referencing the relevant pingroups from the > predefined ones of the soc. > > So I guess your move to the pingrp-header moved them out of the imx6sl.dtsi > to > the .h and is not part of linux-next;
Yes, my for-next branch was excluded from linux-next temporarily for some reason. I will ask Stephen to add it back once v3.14-rc1 is out. That said, you can see nothing we developed in this cycle on linux-next for now. > but this patch (and the others in this > series) now moves the definitions into the individual board files. Can't you > just move them back to the soc-dtsi files to prevent each board duplicating > them? No. That will bring back the problem we try to solve from the beginning [1]. Shawn [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/275912/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
