Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinmux: Add TB10x pinmux driver

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Christian Ruppert
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

quoted

It's not even pinctrl-simple-centric it is completely generic.
The code is in drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c.

It was written by Shiraz Hashin and Haojian Zhuang.
At the time I augmented the core code quite a bit to make
a good fit.

I agree. Unluckily, it uses pinctrl-internal pin numbering which we
would have to make coherent with the physical pin numbers of the
individual packaging variants of the chip in order to expose them to
customers (see my previous mail at https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/22/207).

Again, the Linux pin numberspace is sparse, you can use whatever
pin number you like as long as it fits in a u32 and does not overlap
with other pins.

If you have a problem that the physical pin numbers and the
bank offsets or bits you need to poke or something doesn't
match, that is an issue for the *driver* not for the pin control
subsystem. However the pin control core may provide
cross-mapping helpers as discussed elsewhere, but the
pin control internal numbering is *not* an issue. Those are
just "some number" on a certain pin controller, use the number
from the datasheet if you like.

Understood. What I'm looking for is a way to support different products
with different physical pin numbering, ideally without changing Linux
internal pin numbers from one product variant under the constraints
highlighted in the thread you call "elsewhere".

Greetings,
  Christian

-- 
  Christian Ruppert              ,          [off-list ref]
                                /|
  Tel: +41/(0)22 816 19-42     //|                 3, Chemin du Pré-Fleuri
                             _// | bilis Systems   CH-1228 Plan-les-Ouates