lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/9] includes: dt-bindings: Add STM32F429 pinctrl DT bindings
    From
    On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Maxime Coquelin
    <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 2015-10-20 12:06 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>:
    >> On 17/10/15 18:23, Maxime Coquelin wrote:

    >> I suggesting that, like with the clock driver, there is no need to the
    >> STM32F429_PAXX_FUNC_YYY macros at all.
    >>
    >> Given the way you can enumerate pin config options in stm32f429.dtsi then I
    >> think stm32f429.dtsi is the only file that will ever include this header? If
    >> so then why not just plug the values directly into the pinmux fields. Its
    >> not duplicative and is easier to map back to data sheets.
    >>
    >> ~~~
    >> #define PIN_NO(x) ...
    >> #define PIN_AF(x) ...
    >>
    >> usart1_pins_a: usart1@0 {
    >> pins1 {
    >> pinmux = PIN_NO(9) | PIN_AF(7);
    >> bias-disable;
    >> drive-push-pull;
    >> slew-rate = <0>;
    >> };
    >> ...
    >> };
    >> ~~~
    >
    > The advantage with the defines is that you can see easily which pin we
    > are talking about.
    > Moreover, the defines are generated from the datasheet, so it is
    > painless to generate them.
    > And it will be consistent with Mediatek implementation, on which I
    > heavily inspired.
    >
    > Linus, what is your view?

    I have no strong view of this at all.

    I would ask the opinion of other people doing numbered muxes
    to see what is generally best for everyone to use,
    Sascha Hauer specifically, or the Mediatek people.

    Yours,
    Linus Walleij


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-10-22 15:01    [W:3.680 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site