[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130174910.GG9339@atomide.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:49:10 -0800
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
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>,
"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
* Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org> [120129 18:30]:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 07:43:36AM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> ...
> > The cost of the pmx@dta node is about 12 bytes for the header (it
> > depends on the length of the name), and each of the properties above
> > is 16 bytes. So in total this node is 76 bytes. If we have 250 pins
> > being muxed as Tegra3 then this is about 20KB (including a bit of
> > slack for longer names). My point about being able to 'optimise out'
> > some of these remains, though, but probably not for the kernel.
> >
> > Stephen's 'mux' property uses 12 bytes plus 8 bytes per pin/group (I
> > am removing the prefixes):
> >
> > mux =
> > <PG_DTA MUX_SDIO1>
> > <PG_DTD MUX_SDIO1>;
> >
> > so 28 bytes. What I proposed would use (12 + 2 * 16) per pin/group, or
> > 44 bytes (60% bigger):
> >
> It's not only about size but also run-time tree travelling efficiency.
> Your proposal requires every single pin show as a node in device tree.
> Looking at these for_each_node_by_*() APIs in include/linux/of.h, you
> might agree we should avoid bloating device tree with so many nodes.
And that's why I'm suggesting two bindings: A minimal pinctrl-static
binding and more verbose pinctrl-dynamic binding.
AFAIK the number of pinctrl-dynamic bindings needed are just a fraction
of the pinctrl-static bindings. So the extra parsing needed for a few
pinctrl-dynamic bindings should not matter.
Sure it would be nice to have it all in a single binding, but these
bindings have conflicting requirements. So it may not be possible to
do it in a single binding in an efficient way.
Regards,
Tony
--
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