From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:41:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: OMAP: board-4430sdp: MUX configuration for sys_nirq2 In-Reply-To: <4FFAA6AF.2010004@ti.com> (Peter Ujfalusi's message of "Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:38:55 +0200") References: <1341580752-5501-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <1341580752-5501-2-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <874nplc6va.fsf@ti.com> <4FFAA6AF.2010004@ti.com> Message-ID: <87d344x4xo.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Peter Ujfalusi writes: > On 07/06/2012 04:33 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >>> Since this is TWL6030 specific, it should rather be done in TWL code >>> like I did for sys_nirq1: >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134090312118873&w=2 >>> >>> That would avoid having to do this in both board files. >>> >> Though the pin is TWL specific, it need not be same on >> different board with different SOCs. Especially when you need to >> set MUX mode etc. So doing from board file is still better >> since TWL6030/40 can be connected to non OMAP4 devices >> where the muxing can be different. >> >> With current know boards with TWL6030/40, this is not >> a strong requirement though. > > There can be board which has twl6030 but does not have twl6040. > The twl6040 is the recommended audio solution for OMAP4+ systems but it can be > replaced by other codec on some boards. > This is the reason I have put the mux configuration into the board files for > sys_nirq2 (which is in these cases are used to handle the interrupt from twl6040). OK, sounds right. Thanks for the clarification. Kevin