Re: [PATCH 2/3] devicetree: bindings: drop pinctrl PMU reg property

2014-03-06 Thread Jason Cooper
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:03:09AM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > Marvell Dove's pinctrl does require some PMU regs for muxing PMU > functions to MPP pins. Recently, a discussion started about consolidating > Power Management Unit (PMU) into a single DT node. As we don't want > anymore DT

Re: [PATCH 2/3] devicetree: bindings: drop pinctrl PMU reg property

2014-03-06 Thread Jason Cooper
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:03:09AM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: Marvell Dove's pinctrl does require some PMU regs for muxing PMU functions to MPP pins. Recently, a discussion started about consolidating Power Management Unit (PMU) into a single DT node. As we don't want anymore DT ABI

[PATCH 2/3] devicetree: bindings: drop pinctrl PMU reg property

2014-03-04 Thread Sebastian Hesselbarth
Marvell Dove's pinctrl does require some PMU regs for muxing PMU functions to MPP pins. Recently, a discussion started about consolidating Power Management Unit (PMU) into a single DT node. As we don't want anymore DT ABI in the way, drop the corresponding reg property from pinctrl binding

[PATCH 2/3] devicetree: bindings: drop pinctrl PMU reg property

2014-03-04 Thread Sebastian Hesselbarth
Marvell Dove's pinctrl does require some PMU regs for muxing PMU functions to MPP pins. Recently, a discussion started about consolidating Power Management Unit (PMU) into a single DT node. As we don't want anymore DT ABI in the way, drop the corresponding reg property from pinctrl binding