Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965184Ab3GSHRi (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:17:38 -0400 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:33782 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759727Ab3GSHRg (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:17:36 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.131.214.131 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19SE0QWl/PNK4p0LAPNokO/ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:17:29 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: Nishanth Menon , balbi@ti.com, Sricharan R , linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, rnayak@ti.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] misc: Add crossbar driver Message-ID: <20130719071728.GX7656@atomide.com> References: <1374165830-6367-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <1374165830-6367-2-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <51E83A4F.5080904@ti.com> <51E87C98.5030001@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51E87C98.5030001@ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1146 Lines: 29 > On Thursday 18 July 2013 02:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > Since the cross-bar is not limited t0 IRQ lines and applicable for > DMA request lines as well, making it IRQ chip doesn't make sense. Its > not typical pin control functionality either but at least that framework > is much closer to consider as an option. > > Actually its more of setting up the IRQ and DMA pins maps once > at boot for a given SOC based on chosen configuration by the > board. So I am leaning towards pinctrl as well. Just haven't > thought enough about whether thats the best approach. > > CC'ing Linus W and Tony L whether we can use pinctrl framework > for such an IP and if yes how ;-). If it really muxes signals then using pinctrl seems logical. Especially if the registers are in the SCM block. It might be already possible to handle it already with pinctrl-single,bits for the muxing part. Regards, Tony -- 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/