Hi Masahiro,
On 4 September 2015 at 01:47, Masahiro Yamada yamada.masahiro@socionext.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
2015-09-04 13:03 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Masahiro,
On 3 September 2015 at 21:43, Masahiro Yamada yamada.masahiro@socionext.com wrote:
Commit c5acf4a2b3c6 ("pinctrl: Add the concept of peripheral IDs") added some additional change that was not mentioned in the git-log.
That commit added dm_scan_fdt_node() in the pinctrl uclass binding. It should be handled by the simple-bus driver, and it is totally unrelated to pinctrl in the first place.
Actually you mentioned this before I never got back to it, sorry.
And, I was not tracking it after I mentioned that. Sorry.
Do you mean that pinctrl is not supposed to have child nodes with their own compatible strings?
I do not mean that.
It is OK for a pinctrl device to have child nodes with compatible strings. This should not be restricted.
But, it is not the feature of the pinctrl framework. The pinctrl is not a bus.
Binding child devices should be a task for a bus, in this case, the simple-bus.
Hmm, so here we want to do some simple-bus processing as well as something else, using the list of compatible strings.
Is this something we can arrange within the existing driver model approach?
Regards, Simon