[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYmjrEtds4wLr0cOmCPOLhS9xisfrY-cNZ3r0oh8n489Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:45:09 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
huang eddie <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>, dandan.he@...iatek.com,
alan.cheng@...iatek.com, toby.liu@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: Add pinctrl bindings for mt65xx/mt81xx.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Yingjoe Chen
<yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 10:53 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> >> > You often talk about ambiguities. Could you give an example what
>> >> > ambiguities you mean?
>> >>
>> >> What happened was this pins = ; arguments were sometimes
>> >> strings and sometimes integers, that becomes strange to handle
>> >> in code, ambiguous.
>> >
>> > I see. I like naming it 'pinmux' because that's what it is: pins and
>> > mux settings. A plain 'pinno' suggests that it contains only pin mubers,
>> > without mux setting. How about 'pin-no-mux'? We also could add an
>> > explicit "pins-are-numbered" property instead of distinguishing this
>> > by property names.
>>
>> I kind of like this "pins-are-numbered" thing.
>>
>> The other property for the pin, whether pinmux or pin-no-mux or
>> pin-num-and-mux etc is no such big deal, as long as it's
>> consistent and documented with the generic bindings.
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> To make sure I understand it correct, you think something like this is
> OK?
>
> pinctrl@...20800 {
> compatible = "mediatek,mt8135-pinctrl";
> [...]
> pins-are-numbered;
>
> i2c0_pins_a: i2c0@0 {
> pins1 {
> pins = <MT8135_PIN_100_SDA0__FUNC_SDA0>,
> <MT8135_PIN_101_SCL0__FUNC_SCL0>;
> bias-disable;
> };
> };
As discussed with Sascha Hauer it is ambigous to use "pins" for
a numerical value indicating both a mux setting and a pin. Sascha
suggests using "pinmux" and adding this as a secondary generic
binding for this type of pin controllers that use numbers and #defines
to set up bindings.
We should still move these parsing functions to the core.
See this discussion earlier in this thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142116581226500&w=2
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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