[U-Boot] [PATCH] pinctrl: move dm_scan_fdt_node() out of pinctrl uclass

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hi Simon,


2015-09-06 1:12 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
>
>
> 2015-09-04 23:14 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 4 September 2015 at 01:47, Masahiro Yamada
>> <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-09-04 13:03 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>>>> Hi Masahiro,
>>>>
>>>> On 3 September 2015 at 21:43, Masahiro Yamada
>>>> <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote:
>>>>> Commit c5acf4a2b3c6 ("pinctrl: Add the concept of peripheral IDs")
>>>>> added some additional change that was not mentioned in the git-log.
>>>>>
>>>>> That commit added dm_scan_fdt_node() in the pinctrl uclass binding.
>>>>> It should be handled by the simple-bus driver, and it is totally
>>>>> unrelated to pinctrl in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Actually you mentioned this before I never got back to it, sorry.
>>>
>>> And, I was not tracking it after I mentioned that.  Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you mean that pinctrl is not supposed to have child nodes with
>>>> their own compatible strings?
>>>
>>> I do not mean that.
>>>
>>> It is OK for a pinctrl device to have child nodes with compatible strings.
>>> This should not be restricted.
>>>
>>>
>>> But, it is not the feature of the pinctrl framework.
>>> The pinctrl is not a bus.
>>>
>>>
>>> Binding child devices should be a task for a bus, in this case, the simple-bus.
>>
>> Hmm, so here we want to do some simple-bus processing as well as
>> something else, using the list of compatible strings.
>>
>> Is this something we can arrange within the existing driver model approach?
>
> After some consideration, I think we should not do this (at least
> until we find a good solution).
> Doing it could screw up our DM approach.
>
> The Rockchip's pinctrl looks like a container of some GPIO banks,
> so I think it makes sense to have dm_scan_fdt_node() in rk3288_pinctrl_bind().
>

I dropped "By the way, ..." from the git-log of v2
because it looks like it is suggesting to re-work the binding scheme of DM core.

I think we should be careful about that.



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada