Hi Marek, On sam., déc. 22 2018, Marek Behun <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:32:57 +0100 > Gregory CLEMENT <[email protected]> wrote: > >> + PIN_GRP_GPIO("pcie1", 3, 1, BIT(5), "pcie"), >> + PIN_GRP_GPIO("pcie1_clkreq", 4, 1, BIT(9), "pcie"), > > If the pair is split to clkreq and reset, shouldn't the first be called > pcie1_reset? I considered this but chose to keep pcie1 in order to preserve backward compatibility. I agree that it is debatable, because without the fix the old device tree can't work. However I find it better preserving the initial intent of an existing device tree. By talking about it, I think about an other option, keeping pcie1 name to setup the pins 39 and 40 how it was documented. And introducing pcie1_reset and pcie1_clkreq for new binding. however I don't know how it could be handle by the pinctrl framework. Gregory > Marek -- Gregory Clement, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://bootlin.com
