On Tuesday, January 31, 2017, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > This may become something like: > > > > #define ALT_FUNC_1 0 > > #define ALT_FUNC_2 1 > > #define ALT_FUNC_3 2 > > #define ALT_FUNC_4 3 > > #define ALT_FUNC_5 4 > > #define ALT_FUNC_6 5 > > #define ALT_FUNC_7 6 > > #define ALT_FUNC_8 7 ALT_FUNC_1 is still too long if you're going to OR things on 1 line in the DT. I personally like: #define ALT_1 0 > > #define PIN(b, p) b p > > #define PIN_MUX(func, conf) \ > > ((func & 0xf) | ((conf) << 16)) > > > > and in DTS sources you would describe a pin as > > > > pins = <PIN(bank, pin) PIN_MUX(ALT_FUNC_1, INPUT | BIDIRECTIONAL)>; > > > > We can drop the PIN macro as it does not bring anything I agree, but > > it's nicer to see imho > > ... you can keep plain 1-based numbers for alternate functions, and use > the definitions for flags, e.g.: > > pins = <PIN(bank, pin) (1 | INPUT_MODE | BIDIRECTIONAL)>; To Geert's point, nothing is going to be "shorter" than just using '1','2','3',etc.. I also think "BIDIRECTIONAL" >> "BIDIR" Or....we could make life easy on people and #define the pins that are tricky: #define I2C BIDIRECTIONAL #define SDHI_DATA BIDIRECTIONAL #define SDHI_CTRL /* none */ #define RSPI /* none */ #define ETHERNET /* none */ Chris
