On 17.02.2015 22:15, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 02/17/2015 02:08 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:

quoted

On 17.02.2015 21:46, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

Can you be more explicit about the problem here? Why does anything need
to be re-written if a child node is disabled; presumably there's no need
for the child bus numbers to be contiguous. In other words, with the
example in the existing DT binding doc:

[...]

quoted

The way the current driver works, to disable i2c at 0 you'd have to remove
the pinctrl-0 state, pinctrl-names string at position 0, and the node
itself.

[...]

OK, that all makes sense, but I don't think there's any change at all to
the binding; this can all be fixed in the driver without affecting the
definition of the binding at all. At most all that's needed in the
binding is a note to the effect that if a particular child node is
disabled, then this has no effect at all on the requirements for the
pinctrl properties.

I totally agree that the binding is not affected at all. I was under the
impression that the current binding doc justifies the way the driver is
currently parsing the properties. So this was an attempt to reword it
to make it more clear what properties should influence the way
sub-busses are registered.

I'll have another look at the binding doc when the driver is fine.

[...]

quoted

Do you still have one of the current boards available for testing?

Yes, I have both Seaboard and Ventana still (the two Tegra boards that
use this driver). I haven't used them in a while; I hope they still work:-)

Ok, I cross my fingers too and expect a Tested-by :)

Sebastian