Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756439Ab3JHQVg (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:21:36 -0400 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:46555 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751686Ab3JHQVd (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:21:33 -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: U2FsdGVkX1/oMZ5wmLncV4JVPRGjpubK Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:21:28 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Linus Walleij Cc: Haojian Zhuang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Grygorii Strashko , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Ujfalusi , Prakash Manjunathappa , Haojian Zhuang , Linux-OMAP , Roger Quadros Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] pinctrl: single: Prepare for supporting SoC specific features Message-ID: <20131008162128.GB7773@atomide.com> References: <20131003054104.8941.88857.stgit@localhost> <20131003054218.8941.19273.stgit@localhost> <20131007173531.GX8949@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 1953 Lines: 51 * Linus Walleij [131008 05:03]: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Hi Linus W, > > > > Any comments on the pinctrl patches 3 - 5 in this series? > > I have no problems with this patch #3, as it is just changing syntax, > not semantics. > > The problems start with patch #4. > > I am tormented with mixed feelings about this, because from one point of > view I feel it is breaking the promise of pinctrl-single being a > driver for platforms > where a pin is controlled by a *single* register. It is still in that same *single* register. There are interrupt enable and interrupt status bits for *every* pin register on most omaps. > If this was pinctrl-foo.c I would not have been so much bothered, > but now it is something that was supposed to be self-contained and > simple, pertaining to a single register, starting to look like something > else. > > This is a bit like: "oh yeah just one register controls the pins, but under > some circumstances I also want to mess with this register over here, > and then this register over there ..." etc. Not true. If it was some other register I would have set it up as a separate driver under drivers/irqchip. > I'd like Haojian to ACK this to proceed since he's also using this driver > now. Then I feel better on continuing down this road ... > > Then I have a lesser comment on patch #4 since it makes it possible > for this pin controller to support wake-up interrupt, as I don't see how > this plays out with front-end GPIO controllers, but let's discuss that > in the context of that patch. It's completely separate from the GPIO controller wake-up events. 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/