On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:

On 06/25/2013 09:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

But I do seem to recall some endless discussions about this,
I think we need to agree to disagree.

But the whole point of a subsystem is to provide clear common semantics
across all the different drivers that comprise it.

I guess we simply disagree on how deeply these semantics
should go.

IMHO, it's a great
failing of pinctrl that it doesn't clearly define its data model at all,
and just leaves individual driver authors to use groups in whatever
random fashion they want.

I do not think any driver is using it in a "random" fashion.
I would agree if the authors just stuck any pins into some
random groups named after colors or rock bands.

Obviously there is a mental model of the uses somewhere
behind the code.

We really should have different entries in the
pinctrl data model for these different concepts (real HW groups, and
logical/virtual/SW groups) since they're entirely different things with
different semantics.

That's what the tongue-in-cheek patch tried to convey, in some
kind of humorous manner. I was just trying to lighten up the
discussion a bit.

Perhaps it's simplest if I just step out of pinctrl and let it exist as
it is.

No not at all. Your work on defining and reviewing the pinctrl
drivers and DT bindings is much appreciated. However all
comittee work tend to lead to a few compromises. I don't
think this one compromise is especially hard to live with.

Yours,
Linus Walleij