Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Feb 2012 02:13:54 +0800 | Subject | Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2 | From | Dong Aisheng <> |
| |
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote: > * Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> [120202 11:36]: >> >> Actually i think i'd rather do not use config property, then i could >> be more compact: >> (anyway it's another issue and is flexible to be controlled by #pinmux-cells) >> pinctrl_usdhc4: pinconfig-usdhc4 { >> /* 0: pin 1: group */ >> mux-entity = <0>; >> func-name = "usdhc4func"; >> grp-name = "usdhc4grp"; > > The func-name and grp-name should be optional here. > This mux entry is already the group, and can be used as > the group name. For the case i discussed here, the mux entry is PIN. (the mux-entity value is 0). we introduce this value here for treating all pins is one group. When do map parsing, only one pinmux map will be created. So we need a grp-name. And we also need a func-name here for construct pinmux map.
> And the function name can be generated > dynamically in most cases. I'm currently using np->full_name > of the driver claiming these pins as the function name. > Why i did not use np->name as function name is because the np->name can be different while actually these nodes may represent the same function but just different pins, so the function name should be same.
>> mux = >> <MX6Q_SD4_CMD 0 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_CLK 0 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT0 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT1 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT2 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT3 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT4 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT5 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT6 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL> >> <MX6Q_SD4_DAT7 1 MX6Q_USDHC_PAD_CTRL>; >> }; > > For listing basic pins this format works fine for me. It seems > to have low overhead for parsing. And the width of the array > can be driver specific. > > Looks like it's the binding for altenative states that's still a > bit open.. > Yes, it does not have states support.
> So how about let's first standardize on the mux format above? > I'm afraid it may be hard for us to standardize the mux format for a standard binding in pinctrl core due to hw difference. I'm think the new way which i sent in this thread after the mail you replied. You can refer to them to see if it's reasonable for you too.
Regards Dong Aisheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |