From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:17:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] i2c: mux-pinctrl: Rework to honor disabled child nodes In-Reply-To: <5515C6B6.7080903@gmail.com> References: <550A05E5.3050100@gmail.com> <20150319100944.GA914@katana> <550AEF9D.6090307@wwwdotorg.org> <20150319160208.GF7657@katana> <550B3725.10209@gmail.com> <20150320101925.GC2071@katana> <20150321210028.GA1078@katana> <550EBDBC.9000903@gmail.com> <20150323183211.GB1128@katana> <5515C6B6.7080903@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150403181746.GA1298@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > While thinking about it (and I still think of it as a 'big issue' > compared to the intention of the initial patch) I came to the > conclusion that I should maybe just go for a board-specific > i2c-mux-pinctrl node instead of adding it to the SoC dtsi. That will > also avoid doubled i2c busses on boards with just the default i2c > option. Ehrm, then please let me know what you decided on. If you chose the above road, then I don't need to think about the other questions :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: