* Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> [120511 12:21]: > > The mapping of GPIO to pinctrl pins would presumably be driven solely by > the HW design of the pin controller and GPIO, and not by the mux > selection in the pin controller (otherwise, I'd argue this isn't a > simple case that should be handled by pinctrl-simple). > > As such, I'd expect some properties/table at the top-level of the pin > controller object to describe the GPIO mapping. In turn, that implies > that the individual per-pin mux-selection/configuration nodes don't need > to describe any GPIO-related information.
Yes good point. I agree it's a HW design issue, and could be in the properties for the pin controller object. Just to summarize, the things to consider with the GPIO to mux mapping are: 1. Having this table as static data in the driver is is not a nice solution as it seems that we'd currently need six mapping tables for omap2+ alone. 2. This table is not needed for most of the (hundreds of) pins, it's only needed for a few selected pins, let's say ten or so on an average device. So there's no need to stuff the kernel with information about the unused GPIO pins. It seems that the conclusion here is that we don't need to worry about GPIOs in the pinctrl-simple binding for now, and it can be added later without having to change the basic binding. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
