On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:13 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add support for pinctrl-0 through pinctrl-8 explicitly instead of trying > > to add support for pinctrl-%d properties. > > > > Of all the pinctrl-* properties in dts files (20322), only 47% (9531) > > are pinctrl-%d properties. Of all the pinctrl-%d properties, 99.5% > > (9486) are made up of pinctrl-[0-2]. > > > > Trying to parse all pinctrl-* properties and checking for pinctrl-%d is > > unnecessarily complicated. So, just add support for pinctrl-[0-8] for > > now. In the unlikely event we ever exceed pinctrl-8, we can come back > > and improve this. > > It wasn't immediately clear from this that pinctrl-8 is the current > max you found vs. a should be enough for a while. Hmmm... I tried. Looks like I failed. Open to copy-pasting any commit text that you think will make it clearer. > Pinctrl is also a bit special in that we have 100s of child nodes and > only 1 to a few actual dependencies (the pinctrl node). I assume in > the end here, it's just the pin controller node that's the dependency > rather than creating lot's of dependencies? Correct. In the end, it just links to the one (or few) pin controller devices. Is there a requirement that all pinctrl-N properties point to the child state nodes of the same pin-controller node? Or can pinctrl-0 point to one and pinctrl-1 point to another pin controller node? If the former, all I'd need to do is parse pinctrl-0. -Saravana
