linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] pinctrl: zynq: Document DT binding

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]

Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:53:15 -0800
From:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...pv.it>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	<linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] pinctrl: zynq: Document DT binding

On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 04:00PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Soren Brinkmann
> <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com> wrote:
> 
> > Add documentation for the devicetree binding for the Zynq pincontroller.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
> (...)
> > +Example:
> > +       pinctrl0: pinctrl@700 {
> > +               compatible = "xlnx,pinctrl-zynq";
> > +               reg = <0x700 0x200>;
> > +               syscon = <&slcr>;
> > +
> > +               pinctrl_uart1_default: pinctrl-uart1-default {
> > +                       common {
> > +                               groups = "uart1_10_grp";
> > +                               function = "uart1";
> > +                               slew-rate = <0>;
> > +                               io-standard = <1>;
> > +                       };
> 
> I don't really like that you mix multiplexing and config in the
> same node. I would prefer if the generic bindings say we have
> muxing nodes and config nodes, and those are disparate.
> 
> Can't you just split this:
> 
> common-mux {
>     groups = "uart1_10_grp";
>     function = "uart1";
> };
> 
> common-config {
>     groups = "uart1_10_grp";
>     slew-rate = <0>;
>     io-standard = <1>;
> };
> 
> That way we can identify nodes as mux nodes (have "function")
> or config nodes (have "groups" or "pins" but not "function") which
> I think makes things easier to read.

I think such separation is not required by the bindings currently and
the parser assumes everything can be present in any node.
Can we add that requirement to the generic bindings without breaking
current users? I think it would make the implementation a little easier.
	
	Thanks,
	Sören
--
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/