Hi Linus,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM, <jac...@jmondi.org> wrote:
>>> 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)
>
> Correction: you should be using the property "pinmux", because you
> are setting group and function at the same time.
OK.
> See for example:
> include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/mt65xx.h
>
> And how that is used in:
> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-pinfunc.h
> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
>
> The docs are here:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-mt65xx.txt
All of the above pack the information for a pin into a single 32-bit integer.
Is that what you want us to use, too?
Currently we use two integers: 1) pin index, and 2) function/flags combo.
> I'm sorry that "pinmux" is not part of the generic documentation, it'd be
> great if you would like to add it with a patch.
That would mean pinmux could be an array of single values, or tuples.
Is that OK?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
