pinctrl: mvebu: numerous fixes, cleanups and improvements
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 34 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 34 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH 00/34] pinctrl: mvebu: numerous fixes, cleanups and improvements
Quoted 3 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
But before doing that, it'd be great to have your point of on the patches that actually break the DT backward compatibility. If there are to be rejected anyway, I'd rather not spend more time on them.
Hi Thomas
I read a presentation recently, "Device Tree as a stable ABI: a fairy tale?" :-)
But we should at least try. So what is actually involved in keeping backwards compatibility?
The two patches i pointed out have two different situations.
What does pinctrl do when you ask for a pin which is not a member of the function? If it silently ignores it, not a problem. But i expect it actually throws an error. I could be wrong here, but it looks like it is the mvebu code which checks if a pin is a member of a function. So it might be possible to set the value of the val in the mvebu_mpp_ctrl_setting to 0xff for the removed NAND pins, and when we see such a value, print a warning about outdated DT, and "succeed" rather than return an error.
For spi -> spi0 it seems messier. So i would leave it as spi with a comment, and add spi1.
I do see value in having consistent names and matching the datasheet were possible. So if we can find reasonable compromises, i think these patches are useful.
Andrew