On 22 August 2012 22:39, Mitch Bradley [off-list ref] wrote:

Sorry to interject on a topic that seems to have already been decided,
but I'm confused by one thing and would like clarification.  I
understand that you need to use a GPIO-style specifier as a surrogate
for a pinmux specification - that much is clear.  What is not clear is
why it's necessary to (ab)use the name "cd-gpios" for it.

Why not use a different property name, e.g. "samsung,cd-pinmux-gpio =
<gpio-specifier>" for the "cd-gpios + samsung,sdhci-cd-internal" case?
Then both "samsung,sdhci-cdi-internal" and "samsung,sdhci-cd-external"
could go away.  There would only be one system-dependent property
"samsung,cd-pinmux-gpio" whose name would make it clear that it's
conflating pinmuxing and gpios.

Right, I agree. I will prepare the sdhci-s3c based on Chris's new
generic binding patch and your suggestion.

I think the scheme I propose would be clearer, less likely to confuse
other people who try to use the driver as a model, require less
hand-waving in the documentation, and easier to change to a proper
pinmuxing scheme should that become available later.

Thanks for your time.

Regards,
Thomas.