RE: [PATCH 1/5] pinctrl: imx: add generic pin config core support

["A.S. Dong" <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Guo [mailto:shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:56 PM
> To: A.S. Dong
> Cc: Andy Duan; Jacky Bai; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; stefan@xxxxxxxx;
> linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pinctrl: imx: add generic pin config core support
> 
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:56:18AM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote:
> > > > @@ -489,17 +547,29 @@ static int imx_pinctrl_parse_groups(struct
> > > device_node *np,
> > > >  		pin_size = SHARE_FSL_PIN_SIZE;
> > > >  	else
> > > >  		pin_size = FSL_PIN_SIZE;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (info->generic_pinconf)
> > > > +		pin_size -= 4;
> > > > +
> > > >  	/* Initialise group */
> > > >  	grp->name = np->name;
> > > >
> > > >  	/*
> > > > -	 * the binding format is fsl,pins = <PIN_FUNC_ID CONFIG ...>,
> > > > +	 * the binding format is pins = <PIN_FUNC_ID CONFIG ...>,
> > >
> > > This is not correct for generic pinconf bindings.  CONIFIG shouldn't
> > > be there.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that's for legacy stuff.
> 
> If that's for legacy bindings, you shouldn't change 'fsl,pins' to 'pins',
> right?
> 

I mean the binding format.
For the legacy format, either the name of 'fsl,pins' or 'pins' is ok.

But in order to increase the standard 'pins' priority, I change
'fsl,pins' to 'pins' to make it more explicitly.

I do can leave "fsl,pins' not changed, but I think the new one
may be better, right?

Regards
Dong Aisheng

> Shawn
--
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