Query on pinctrl usage for DT nodes
Prabhakar Lad
prabhakar.csengg at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 01:09:55 EDT 2013
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> * Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> [130410 10:37]:
>> On 04/10/2013 02:12 AM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
>> ...
>> > Following is the proposed fix/hack let me know if its OK.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > --Prabhakar
>> >
>> > ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.h b/drivers/pinctrl/core.h
>> > index ee72f1f..78fb42d 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.h
>> > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct pinctrl_dev {
>> > struct pinctrl *p;
>> > struct pinctrl_state *hog_default;
>> > struct pinctrl_state *hog_sleep;
>> > + bool bits_per_mux;
>>
>> This clearly isn't correct; any change to solve this problem should only
>> touch the internals of the pinctrl-single driver, not the pinctrl core.
>
> Yeah how about just change the pintctrl-single,bits register
> naming to be register + bit? Something like 0xdeadbeef.0 and
> 0xdeadbeef.1 and so on.
>
How and where the changing the register naming would help ?
Regards,
--Prabhakar
> Regards,
>
> Tony
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list