From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932113Ab2AREgG (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:36:06 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:53731 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757008Ab2AREgE (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:36:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:47:18 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Dong Aisheng-B29396 Cc: Stephen Warren , "linus.walleij@stericsson.com" , "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "cjb@laptop.org" , "Simon Glass (sjg@chromium.org)" , Dong Aisheng , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" Subject: Re: Pinmux bindings proposal Message-ID: <20120118044716.GD563@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF17801D202F@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <7FE21149F4667147B645348EC6057885091DEA@039-SN2MPN1-013.039d.mgd.msft.net> <20120117082334.GA31295@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <7FE21149F4667147B645348EC6057885092D56@039-SN2MPN1-013.039d.mgd.msft.net> <20120117141322.GA31687@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <7FE21149F4667147B645348EC6057885093AD9@039-SN2MPN1-013.039d.mgd.msft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7FE21149F4667147B645348EC6057885093AD9@039-SN2MPN1-013.039d.mgd.msft.net> 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 On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 03:44:59AM +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote: ... > > > The real problem is do we need to support individual pin mux Or still > > > using virtual pin group? > > > For the way Stephen proposed, we can only support individual pin mux > > > Since IMX pins are not grouped together in HW. > > > > > I do not see any problem here. If you look at the first column of 'mux' > > property of node pinmux-usdhc1, it is a group of pins for usdhc1. > > Isn't it one virtual pin group for usdhc1? > > > If we treat the whole pins in 'mux' property as a group, > There may be potential inconsistent issue since Tegra will treat each > One in the list of 'mux' as a group. > And it would be a problem for pinctrl core to parse it in a standard way. > Based on my understanding, the 'group' given by 'mux' property may be a group of pin/group defined by hardware, or mixing of the two. -- Regards, Shawn