Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752091Ab3FYPxs (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:53:48 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]:38010 "EHLO mail-ob0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751977Ab3FYPxq (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:53:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51C9B9AB.2010403@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1371128132-18266-2-git-send-email-christian.ruppert@abilis.com> <51BA3BC1.3090109@wwwdotorg.org> <20130614091241.GA23745@ab42.lan> <51C1F42E.5090107@wwwdotorg.org> <51C1F82C.4020502@wwwdotorg.org> <20130620115710.GB942@ab42.lan> <51C4C2ED.5090505@wwwdotorg.org> <51C9B9AB.2010403@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:53:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make non-linear GPIO ranges accesible from gpiolib From: Linus Walleij To: Stephen Warren Cc: Christian Ruppert , Patrice CHOTARD , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Sascha Leuenberger , Pierrick Hascoet , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1817 Lines: 48 On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/25/2013 09:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> But I do seem to recall some endless discussions about this, >> I think we need to agree to disagree. > > But the whole point of a subsystem is to provide clear common semantics > across all the different drivers that comprise it. I guess we simply disagree on how deeply these semantics should go. > IMHO, it's a great > failing of pinctrl that it doesn't clearly define its data model at all, > and just leaves individual driver authors to use groups in whatever > random fashion they want. I do not think any driver is using it in a "random" fashion. I would agree if the authors just stuck any pins into some random groups named after colors or rock bands. Obviously there is a mental model of the uses somewhere behind the code. > We really should have different entries in the > pinctrl data model for these different concepts (real HW groups, and > logical/virtual/SW groups) since they're entirely different things with > different semantics. That's what the tongue-in-cheek patch tried to convey, in some kind of humorous manner. I was just trying to lighten up the discussion a bit. > Perhaps it's simplest if I just step out of pinctrl and let it exist as > it is. No not at all. Your work on defining and reviewing the pinctrl drivers and DT bindings is much appreciated. However all comittee work tend to lead to a few compromises. I don't think this one compromise is especially hard to live with. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/