Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752957AbaBUUEi (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:04:38 -0500 Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9]:39874 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751030AbaBUUEg (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:04:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:04:34 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Mark Rutland Cc: Nicolas Ferre , Boris BREZILLON , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Gregory Clement , Maxime Ripard , Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/8] ARM: at91: Add at91sam9rl DT SoC support Message-ID: <20140221200434.GA4436@piout.net> References: <1392823951-26053-1-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> <1392823951-26053-2-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> <20140219170020.GA25079@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140219173141.GB3038@piout.net> <20140219175409.GF25079@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5305C3EB.5080107@overkiz.com> <5305C700.4090601@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5305C700.4090601@atmel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On 20/02/2014 at 10:12:32 +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote : > >>>> NAK. Either this is a atmel,at91rm9200-pinctrl node or a simple-bus. Not > >>>> both; that doesn't make any sense. > >>>> > >>> Simply a copy paste, I'll fix that here and also the 6 other atmel > >>> dtsi includes. > >>> > >>> What is your preference for those using: > >>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9x5-pinctrl", "atmel,at91rm9200-pinctrl", "simple-bus"; ? > >> A node should by either a bus or a pinctrl node. > >> > >> If it has chidren then the simple-bus should be separated out into a > >> separate node. If there are no children simple-bus should go. > > > > Doing this clearly break backward compatibility (the current pinctrl > > drivers relies on > > gpio controller being subnodes of the pinctrl node), but I'm interested > > in how you would > > have represented this. > > Guys, just be warned, I do not plan to rework or even push for a rework > of the pinctrl driver anytime soon. > > So I am afraid but you will have to live with this DT representation of > pinctrl for quite some time (even if it doesn't make sense, sorry Mark)... > Those bindings have been merged in july 2012 and like others, I fear we will definitely have to break backward compatibility when reworking those. So, in light of what Nicolas said, I've sent v3 taking into account all your other comments. I believe we have 3 at91sam9 SoCs that will enter the DT world for 3.15. I suggest that we finish the DT and CCF transition then we'll take some time to rework the pinctrl driver. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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/