linux-kernel - Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120130023148.GC10470@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:31:50 +0800
From:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Cc:	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Dong Aisheng-B29396 <B29396@...escale.com>,
	"Linus Walleij (linus.walleij@...aro.org)" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"Sascha Hauer (s.hauer@...gutronix.de)" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	"cjb@...top.org" <cjb@...top.org>,
	Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Grant Likely (grant.likely@...retlab.ca)" 
	<grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:29:50AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Simon Glass wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:42 AM:
...
> > 1. It doesn't seem to make full use of the device tree format. For example,
> > 
> >    <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
> > 
> > would be better as something like
> > 
> >     drive-strength = <5>;
> > 
> > if we could arrange it. It also reduces the need for these
> > TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH defines.
> 
> Yes I can see the argument this is more readable.
> 
> However, it:
> 
> * Requires a lot of string handling when parsing the device tree, since
>   you have to search for lots of individual properties by name.
> 
> * Bloats the device tree quite a bit due to representing each parameter
>   as a separate property, with a longish name, rather than a single u32
>   cell in the config property I proposed.
> 
It bloats device tree more due to the proposal needs to represent every
single muxable entity (pin for imx case) as a node to accommodate the
properties like 'drive-strength' here.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn
--
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/