On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 10:53 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> > You often talk about ambiguities. Could you give an example what
> >> > ambiguities you mean?
> >>
> >> What happened was this pins = ; arguments were sometimes
> >> strings and sometimes integers, that becomes strange to handle
> >> in code, ambiguous.
> >
> > I see. I like naming it 'pinmux' because that's what it is: pins and
> > mux settings. A plain 'pinno' suggests that it contains only pin mubers,
> > without mux setting. How about 'pin-no-mux'? We also could add an
> > explicit "pins-are-numbered" property instead of distinguishing this
> > by property names.
>
> I kind of like this "pins-are-numbered" thing.
>
> The other property for the pin, whether pinmux or pin-no-mux or
> pin-num-and-mux etc is no such big deal, as long as it's
> consistent and documented with the generic bindings.
Hi Linus,
To make sure I understand it correct, you think something like this is
OK?
pinctrl@01c20800 {
compatible = "mediatek,mt8135-pinctrl";
[...]
pins-are-numbered;
i2c0_pins_a: i2c0@0 {
pins1 {
pins = <MT8135_PIN_100_SDA0__FUNC_SDA0>,
<MT8135_PIN_101_SCL0__FUNC_SCL0>;
bias-disable;
};
};
[....]
}
Joe.C
--
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
