On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Maxime Coquelin
<mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2015-10-20 12:06 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 17/10/15 18:23, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> I suggesting that, like with the clock driver, there is no need to the
>> STM32F429_PAXX_FUNC_YYY macros at all.
>>
>> Given the way you can enumerate pin config options in stm32f429.dtsi then I
>> think stm32f429.dtsi is the only file that will ever include this header? If
>> so then why not just plug the values directly into the pinmux fields. Its
>> not duplicative and is easier to map back to data sheets.
>>
>> ~~~
>> #define PIN_NO(x) ...
>> #define PIN_AF(x) ...
>>
>> usart1_pins_a: usart1@0 {
>> pins1 {
>> pinmux = PIN_NO(9) | PIN_AF(7);
>> bias-disable;
>> drive-push-pull;
>> slew-rate = <0>;
>> };
>> ...
>> };
>> ~~~
>
> The advantage with the defines is that you can see easily which pin we
> are talking about.
> Moreover, the defines are generated from the datasheet, so it is
> painless to generate them.
> And it will be consistent with Mediatek implementation, on which I
> heavily inspired.
>
> Linus, what is your view?
I have no strong view of this at all.
I would ask the opinion of other people doing numbered muxes
to see what is generally best for everyone to use,
Sascha Hauer specifically, or the Mediatek people.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
