lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: Pinmux bindings proposal V2
Tony Lindgren wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:21 PM:
> * Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> [120126 09:11]:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I agree. This is something that most pinmux/pinconf drivers need to
> implement, so it's best done in a generic way.

Yet:

* Some controllers don't have a "drive strength" property
* Others have a single "drive strength" property
* Others configure drive strength separately for driving a signal high
or low.

Hence, representing this in a generic fashion doesn't seem possible to
me, except through (key, value) pairs where the individual drivers or
bindings define what the keys are.

--
nvpublic



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-27 18:41    [W:0.087 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site