On 08/23/2012 07:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
dt_parse() and dt_parse_function() build up structs that get used later on
in mvebu_pinmux_ops that require indexed functions. I can join them with
dt_node_to_map() but that would require incremental kzalloc for the
corresponding array. Or I could (functionally) leave dt_parse() to allocate
the array and only join dt_parse_function() with dt_node_to_map().
So everything you said makes sense, in that the core driver is
parameterizable and receives data from a SoC-variant-specific driver
indicating which pins/groups/functions are available. I'm still not sure
though why the translation of the pin/group/function structures passed
to probe into other data structures requires accessing the DT at all;
the set of available pins/groups/functions isn't configured through DT,
and doesn't need to be limited to only those options actually used in
DT, so can't you just process all the data that's passed to probe
without interaction with the DT?
Hmm, maybe I still don't quite understand the terminology of pinctrl/pinmux
core completely. What exactly should mvebu_pinmux_get_funcs_count return
if not the number of DT node children?
I thought that a "function" in the terminology of pinctrl/pinmux core is
a list of pingroups and corresponding values to actually set it to e.g. uart1.
In pinctrl-mvebu this would be one marvell,function assigned to one or more
marvell,pins.
If the above is correct, I still need to access DT in probe() at least to count
the number of children passed to allocate an array for mvebu_pinmux_ops callbacks
that get indexed by "fid" (pctl->functions).
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
