[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <010201ccba2e$9b4564e0$d1d02ea0$%park@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:04:22 +0900
From: Chanho Park <chanho61.park@...sung.com>
To: 'Linus Walleij' <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 'Stephen Warren' <swarren@...dia.com>,
'Grant Likely' <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
'Barry Song' <21cnbao@...il.com>,
'Shawn Guo' <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
'Thomas Abraham' <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
'Dong Aisheng' <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
'Rajendra Nayak' <rajendra.nayak@...aro.org>,
'Haojian Zhuang' <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>,
'Linus Walleij' <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6] pinctrl: add a pin config interface
> ChangeLog v5->v6:
> - Change to using a pin name as parameter for the
> [get|set]_config() functions, as suggested by Stephen Warren.
> This is more natural as names will be what a developer has
> access to in written documentation etc.
I don't agree with it.
Someone doesn't like to assign a pin name individually because a
pin number is sufficient to represent each pin.
We also provide a macro to define a anonymous pin descriptor.
/* Convenience macro to define a single named or anonymous pin descriptor */
#define PINCTRL_PIN(a, b) { .number = a, .name = b }
#define PINCTRL_PIN_ANON(a) { .number = a }
If we use only the pin name for [get|set]_config(), we must assign the name
of all pins.
IMHO, we also provide pin numbers to control anonymous pins.
--
Best Regards,
Chanho Park
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists