Hi Arnd,
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 November 2015 15:41:23 Moritz Fischer wrote:
>> +/* Pin names for the E31x usecase */
>> +#define E31X_TX_BANDSEL_2 "DB_1"
>> +#define E31X_RX1B_BANDSEL_0 "DB_3"
>> +#define E31X_RX1B_BANDSEL_1 "DB_5"
>> +#define E31X_VCTXRX2_V2 "DB_7"
>> +#define E31X_TX_ENABLE1A "DB_9"
>> +#define E31X_TX_ENABLE2A "DB_11"
>> +#define E31X_TX_BANDSEL_0 "DB_12"
>
> Why not put the strings directly into the .dts files and change the
> lookup table in the driver accordingly:
>
> +static const struct pinctrl_pin_desc e3xx_pins[] = {
> + /* pin0 doesn't exist */
> + PINCTRL_PIN(1, "TX_BANDSEL_2"),
> + PINCTRL_PIN(3, "RX1B_BANDSEL_0"),
> + PINCTRL_PIN(5, "RX1B_BANDSEL_1"),
> + PINCTRL_PIN(7, "VCTXRX2_V2"),
That's actually the way I initially had it, however the pin names
literally changed
in the schematic depending on which daughter-board you stick into the slot.
So my plan was to add the #defines for the second daughter-board in a
follow up patch
once the pin assignment is final. This would allow me to have something like:
pins = E31X_TX_BANDSEL_2;
output-low;
in one .dts, while having something like
pins = E33X_TX_BANDSEL_2
output low;
in the second dts
The other option would have been to stick a e31x_pins and a e33x_pins
into the driver,
and set them according to a compatible string or "ettus,daughterboard"
property on probe.
Does that make sense, or do you think there's a cleaner / better way
to achieve this sort of behavior?
Thanks for your feedback!
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
