On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:49:01AM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 2016-10-10 1:39 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 04:04:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> Hi Krzysztof,
> >>
> >> 2016-09-04 20:04 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Changes since v2
> >> > ================
> >> > 1. Combine separate patchsets into one. Previously I sent separately the fixes
> >> > and changes for S3C platforms.
> >> > 2. Fix issues pointed during review.
> >> > 3. Add review tags.
> >> >
> >> > Changes since v1
> >> > ================
> >> > 1. Follow Arnd's suggestion about moving the macros to common place.
> >> > 2. Subjects: replace "GPIO" with "pinctrl".
> >> > 3. There were some major changes here so I did not add Javier's
> >> > reviewed-by and tested-by tags.
> >> >
> >> > Merging
> >> > =======
> >> > Patches #1 and #2 should probably go through pinctrl tree. In that case I would
> >> > appreciate a stable branch/tag so DTS could base on top of it.
> >> >
> >> > Goal
> >> > ====
> >> > Increase readability:
> >> > uart0_data: uart0-data {
> >> > samsung,pins = "gpa0-0", "gpa0-1";
> >> > - samsung,pin-function = <2>;
> >> > - samsung,pin-pud = <0>;
> >> > - samsung,pin-drv = <0>;
> >> > + samsung,pin-function = <EXYNOS_PIN_FUNC_2>;
> >> > + samsung,pin-pud = <EXYNOS_PIN_PULL_NONE>;
> >> > + samsung,pin-drv = <EXYNOS4_PIN_DRV_LV1>;
> >>
> >> I like the idea, thanks for cleaning this up. However I'd like to
> >> bikeshed the prefix a bit. Since the properties are already prefixed
> >> by "samsung,", I think it would make much more sense to also prefix
> >> the generic values with "SAMSUNG_". Of course for soc/family-specific
> >> values, the soc/family name prefix sounds right.
> >
> > I am lost. Sorry, I don't get what kind of final prefixes you would like
> > to have.
> >
> > SAMSUNG_EXYNOS4_PIN_DRV_LV1
> > SAMSUNG_EXYNOS5260_PIN_DRV_LV1
> > ?
>
> For SoC-specific definitions:
>
> EXYNOS4_PIN_DRV_LV1
> EXYNOS5260_PIN_DRV_LV1
ok... so no change needed in my patch.
>
> >
> >> Similarly for rest of the value names, such as SAMSUNG_PIN_PUD instead
> >> of SAMSUNG_PIN_PULL, which obviously sounds more like correct English,
> >> however hurts the consistency and could confuse the people writing new
> >> dts files.
> >
> > SAMSUNG_S3C64XX_PIN_PUD_NONE
> > SAMSUNG_EXYNOS_PIN_PUD_NONE
>
> For definitions common for the whole Samsung pinctrl driver:
>
> SAMSUNG_PIN_PUD_NONE
These are not the same. The "none" is the same but rest is not.
> But actually I think I missed the fact that there is almost no common
> definitions. Is that correct? Was that the missing part of my
> understanding?
Yes. The only common definition for all Samsung SoCs would be the
function of a pin. On the other hand this will bring inconsistency:
everything prefixed with SoC except the function.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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
