On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 14:07 +0800, Yixun Lan wrote:
> > (the following question just came up while I was looking at this
> > patch, but I guess it's more a question towards the pinctrl driver)
> > the name of the function looks a bit "weird" since below you are also
> > using "uart_ao_b"
>
> you right here, it's a question related to pinctrl subsystem.
> from my point of view, it's even weird from the hardware perspective:
> that, the UART function of AO domain route the pin of EE domain..
>
> > did you choose "uart_ao_b_gpioz" here because we cannot have the same
> > function name for the periphs and AO pinctrl or is there some other
> > reason?
> >
>
> Current there is a conflict in the code level which both two pinctrl
> tree (EE, AO) are using the same macro[1] to expand the definitions, so
> there would be conflict symbol if we name both as 'uart_ao_b'
>
> I think your idea of having an uniform function 'uart_ao_b' for both
> pinctrl subsystem is actually possible/positive..
>
> I will think about your suggestion and come up with a patch later,
> thanks a lot!
>
>
> [1] drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson.h
>
> #define FUNCTION(fn) \
> { \
> .name = #fn, \
> .groups = fn ## _groups, \
> .num_groups = ARRAY_SIZE(fn ## _groups), \
> }
The name feels weird because it should have been uart_ao_b_z ... We missed it in
the initial review. Except for correcting the function name, I don't think this
justify a change a pinctrl
--
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
