Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:51:23 -0800 | From | Tony Lindgren <> | Subject | Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2 |
| |
Hi,
* Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> [120126 00:53]: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:00:52PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > ... > > So to summarize: I suggest we'll just stick to basics to get the system > > booting and devices working using device tree. In most cases the device > > drivers should be able to configure the suspend and off states in a generic > > way using pinctrl API. Everything else, like debugging, we can probably > > do with userspace tools. > > > > This would mean just using a minimal subset of your binding, probably > > very close to what you originally suggested. > > > IMHO, as a generic device tree binding, it should be able to cope with > different use cases. It's really free for you to use the minimal > subset of the binding as your need, but we should not make the binding > design just be that minimal subset to force that everyone else can > only use the minimal subset.
The main issue I have is that the example posted in this thread repeats the same registers five times for one driver entry alone in the device tree data. The repeated registers are TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA and TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD in the example.
The alternative values are something that the pinmux/pinconf driver can set based on state changes communicated from the driver using these pins.
That's why I think these alternative states should not be listed in the device tree.
Regards,
Tony
| |