Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756098Ab2BFX5r (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:57:47 -0500 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:21610 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753694Ab2BFX5q (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:57:46 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 98.234.237.12 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19ml4hzhexa1MeNTdJK/OKb Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:57:33 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Warren , Dong Aisheng , Shawn Guo , Dong Aisheng-B29396 , "Sascha Hauer (s.hauer@pengutronix.de)" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "cjb@laptop.org" , "Simon Glass (sjg@chromium.org)" , Thomas Abraham , "Grant Likely (grant.likely@secretlab.ca)" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal Message-ID: <20120206235733.GY1426@atomide.com> References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF178E5D3160@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <4F2F6AE2.1040504@nvidia.com> <20120206190315.GU1426@atomide.com> <20120206210456.GV1426@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: 1555 Lines: 41 * Linus Walleij [120206 14:44]: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > >> I actually had something like unnamed pins in the early patches > >> to register a bunch of anonymous pins ranges, so why not bring > >> it back in. > > > > Yeah it seems that the mux registers should be listed, it might > > require a little bit of thinking for cases where one register > > controls multiple pins. So maybe we need just a new entry for > > mux registers? > > I'm not sure if I'm following completely, if this is inside the devicetree-based > driver file, would it work to just add a struct dentry * to the > pinctrl_desc where you put a per-driver file? I was thinking generic debufs entries for all drivers. > Or maybe add extern void pinctrl_add_debugfs(struct dentry *) that adds > a new file to the existing per-driver directory through the core and then > have this add that file? Sounds like you've thought it further than me already :) Maybe that's the way to go to solve the one register for multiple pins issue. > Or did you mean that the core.c should be register-aware? I was just thinking string name ignoring core.c, so that would be the pinctrl_add_debugfs() option then. Do you see problems with this approach? 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/