Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add RZ/A1 bindings doc

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Linus,

On 2017-03-28 11:46, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:02 PM, jacopo <jacopo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +  Required properties:
> +    - renesas,pins

Just "pins"?


You know, I've been thinking about this, bu the "pins" property
definition in pinctrl-bidings is the following one:

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt
---
- pins takes a list of pin names or IDs as a required argument. The
  specific binding for the hardware defines:
      - Whether the entries are integers or strings, and their
        meaning.
---

And all examples there assume one "pin name" or "ID" per pin.

Now, we use 2 values per each pin (the pin ID and the alternate
function number), so to me this is different from what the generic
binding describes.
Also, pinctrl-single, and pinctrl-imx which have and ABI similar to
the one this driver define, use "pinctrl-single,pins" and "fsl,pins"
respectively as property names.
So either they have to be updated yet, or we should keep using
"renesas,pins" for our own defined ABI.

Maybe Linus or other pinctrl people can give some suggestion here.

To me as subsystem maintainer any "necessarily different" bindings
are just a big confusion for the head.


Understandable :)

Since you're adding a new driver, try to stick to the generic bindings
even if it deviates from what you are used to for Renesas, because
even if it may be more work for you guys or make you annoyed that
now a certain Renesas is different from all other Renesas platforms,
for the community this makes things easier to maintain because
we can look at the driver and its bindings and say "ah I know this".

The fact that historically all the early adopters of pinctrl in device tree
have these funky custom bindings is unfortunate but just something
that we need to live with.


To avoid any confusion, please bear with me and clarify this once and for all,
since I'm not certain I fully got you here.

Are you suggesting:

1) Use "pins" property with the currently implemented ABI (which slightly differs from the standard documented one as explained above. Not sure it is fine overriding
   it or not)

2) Use "pins" property and change our ABI to match the documented one: one ID (integer
   or string) per pin, not 2 as we're doing now.

Both solutions are easily implementable; 2) requires some more work to make pin id, function number and pin configuration fit in one single integer, but is achievable for sure.

Thanks
   j

Yours,
Linus Walleij

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux