> -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Guo [mailto:shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 11:16 AM > To: A.S. Dong > Cc: Stefan Agner; Mark Rutland; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andy Duan; > Jacky Bai; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rob > Herring; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add imx7ulp pinctrl > binding doc > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:37:27AM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote: > > > > +#ifndef __DTS_IMX7ULP_PINFUNC_H > > > > +#define __DTS_IMX7ULP_PINFUNC_H > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * The pin function ID is a tuple of > > > > + * <mux_conf_reg input_reg mux_mode input_val> */ > > > > + > > > > +#define ULP1_PAD_PTC0__PTC0 > > > > 0x0000 0x0000 0x1 0x0 > > > > > > > > > For consistency with other SoCs, can we add MX7 to the define? E.g. > > > MX7ULP1? > > > > > > > ULP1 is another SoC name of IMX7ULP. > > And there will be ULP0, ULPx in the future.. > > What is the external/formal SoC name for ULP0 and ULPx? > I don't know, it's still a plan. Maybe IMX7ULP0, just can't sure. > > > > It looks like not big issue, so I did not change it. > > It's an easy change to make things more obvious, so +1 on Stefan's opinion. > If we really want to change, 'IMX7ULP1' may be a little strange as 'IMX7ULP' is the official external name and all other places are using it. So IMX7ULP may be more suitable. Then next generation may be: IMX7ULP0_PAD_PTC0_PTC0. Vs IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC0_PTC0 Just not much better than: ULP1_PAD_PTC0_PTC0. vs ULP0_PAD_PTC0_PTC0 That's why I did not do it initially. However, if you do want the change, i'm okay to do it. Regards Dong Aisheng -- 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
