Tony Lindgren wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:21 PM: > * Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> [120126 09:11]: > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > 1. It doesn't seem to make full use of the device tree format. For example, > > > > <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5> > > > > would be better as something like > > > > drive-strength = <5>; > > > > if we could arrange it. It also reduces the need for these > > TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH defines. > > I agree. This is something that most pinmux/pinconf drivers need to > implement, so it's best done in a generic way.
Yet: * Some controllers don't have a "drive strength" property * Others have a single "drive strength" property * Others configure drive strength separately for driving a signal high or low. Hence, representing this in a generic fashion doesn't seem possible to me, except through (key, value) pairs where the individual drivers or bindings define what the keys are. -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
