On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:50:52PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

The Cortina Gemini pin controller uses the standard pin control
bindings for muxing functions with groups so these bindings
should be entirely uncontroversial.

Cc: devicetree at vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/pinctrl/cortina,gemini-pinctrl.txt    | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/cortina,gemini-pinctrl.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/cortina,gemini-pinctrl.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/cortina,gemini-pinctrl.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..2ef3e8a65559
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/cortina,gemini-pinctrl.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+Cortina Systems Gemini pin controller
+
+This pin controller is found in the Cortina Systems Gemini SoC family,
+see further arm/gemini.txt. It is a purely group-based multiplexing pin
+controller.
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible: "cortina,gemini-pinctrl"
+- regmap: phandle to the system controller node

Why not a child of the system controller?

It is a child of the system controller, I just didn't show that in the
example.

And it's true, then I can just look it up from the parent.

I'll revise.

Yours,
Linus Walleij