On 16:11 Fri 27 Apr , Shawn Guo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:11:04AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > except duplicate bindings instead having common one make no sense either > > > > so imx, at91 and ST (STB SoC and other does have the same type of pin IP > > > > to not come with a common bindig means we are doint the same crap as before > > > > with switch to DT > > > It can be every different in hardware details from one pin based > controller to another. mxs pinctrl is another pin based IP, and Dong > tried to approach a binding working good for both imx and mxs, but in > the end we agree imx binding does not work so good for mxs, and vice > versa. And that's why pinctrl core binding design leaves out the > platform specific binding. agreed on the pin level configuration but not for the group management there all the same of simple group of pins for this we must have a common way to describe it and handle it in c Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel