Hi Linus, On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Oops missed this: > >> Hence I think we should not use generic pin properties, but consider these >> settings to be part of pinmux configuration. >> As having large tables in the driver is undesirable, I think storing the >> settings in the "pinmux" property (by encoding them as flags passed to the >> RZA1_PINMUX() macro) is our best option. > > I think it is better to have large tables in the driver in this case. Jacopo, Chris: Would two bits per pin/function (none, input, output, bidir) be sufficient? That makes one u16 per pin. So roughtly 12 ports x 16 pins => 384 bytes. Plus code to handle it. After all not that bad... > It is the lesser evil. > > Having unintelligible and hard to grasp stuff in the device tree that > no user will understand or dare to touch is not good, then it is better > to have it with the code, where it is being used, so the developers of > the driver can see it when they are dealing with this (quirky) hardware. > > As you say this is actually fixing hardware bugs, we can expect these > quirky tables to be gone in the next hardware generation, right? Let's hope so. Chris has a better crystal ball than I have ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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