On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Christian Ruppert
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 01:58:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Christian Ruppert
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+In addition, named groups of pins can be mapped to pin groups of a given
+pin controller using the gpio-ranges property as described below:
+
+       gpio-range-list ::= <single-gpio-range> [gpio-range-list]
+       single-gpio-range ::= <numeric-gpio-range> | <named-gpio-range>
+       numeric-gpio-range ::=
+                       <pinctrl-phandle> <gpio-base> <pinctrl-base> <count>
+       named-gpio-range ::= <pinctrl-phandle> <gpio-base> '<0 0>'
+       pinctrl-phanle : phandle to pin controller node.

phanle really?

Yes, this is actually identical to the numeric ranges. It specifies the
pin controller which is "responsible" for the pins/pin group in
question.

I was more thinking about the speling, should it not be "phandle"?

quoted

The named pin groups actually are a physical property of the pin
controller hardware (well, at least the pin groups are, the names are
not ;).

OK.

It would be good if the names of the group could match, as close
as possible, the names given to the same identity in the data
sheet or similar documentation.

This is the idea. In many cases, the names are more coherent over
several product/package variants than the numbers and it is much easier
to make names coherent with (at least our) hardware documentation than
numbers.

[An updated patch with all the other comments integrated will follow]