On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:51:09AM +0200, Jorik Jonker wrote: > >>- put rts/cts in seperate pinmux sets for uart1 (2,3: see below) > >>- associate rx/tx for uart1-3 in H3 DTSI (this is the only option) > > > >I'm still a bit skeptical about this. This wouldn't be in any way > >consistant. I prefer to have something consistant and a bit duplicated > >over something without any duplication but that confuses everyone > >about what should be placed where. > > > >>- associate UART1 rts/cts as pinctrl-1 in sun8i-h3-bananapi-m2-plus > >> (to prevent breakage for existing users) > > > >You can also set it in pinctrl-0. > > OK, sounds reasonable, but also a bit contradictive. One the one hand you > prefer consistency (so, let uart2-3 follow uart1 and include rts/cts in > them) Hmm, I never said that, quite the opposite actually. Any board might use either just RX/TX, or RX/TX and RTS/CTS. I don't see why we should enable RTS/CTS on any board by default. > , on the other hand the common case over the rare (so split off > rts/cts). What should I do with uarts2-3 and should I do that to > uart1 too? You do the exact same thing in both cases. My point was that you could just do: pinctrl-0 = <&uart0_pins_a>, <&uart0_rts_cts_pins_a>; pinctrl-names = "default"; instead of pinctrl-0 = <&uart0_pins_a>; pinctrl-1 = <&uart0_rts_cts_pins_a>; pinctrl-names = "default", "default"; Since they are the exact same pin state. > Moreover, Chen-Yu prefers to drop _a and @0 when they are redundant, which > does not appear to be the convention, looking at existing sun*dsti. What's > your opinion on this? AFAIK, he wanted to remove them when they're not relevant (ie, only one pin state possible). Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
