On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Christian Ruppert
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[Me]

quoted

I don't see any of the port concept creeping into the device tree
in this version and that is how I think it should be kept:
the "port" particulars is a thing for the driver and not the
device tree.

...

quoted

quoted

In the driver under discussion, pin groups are defined for every
"interface" to make sure that interfaces can be requested in an
orthogonal way by different modules and modules don't have to be "aware"
of which interfaces are grouped into which port (and which other modules
request which other interfaces). A request either succeeds or fails.
Resource management (which interfaces can be mapped simultaneously) is
done inside the pinctrl driver.

OK

This actually looks 100% coherent with Documentation/pinctrl.txt. But
then I don't understand Stephen's request to introduce the concept of
"ports" in the device tree. IMHO ports are a hardware limitation which
should be managed inside the pinctrl driver and if possible not leak
out of it. Also (as stated above), the concept of "ports" does not even
exist in the pinmux framework so why introduce it for DT?

I might have thoroughly misunderstood you here, Stephen. Please be
patient with me and explain once more.

I don't think I asked for ports to be represented in DT. Do you have
more context?