Hi Stephen,
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> In the pinctrl node we would have
>
> pinctrl {
> compatible = "fsl,kenetis70-pinctrl";
> reg = <0x40049000 0x2000>;
> clocks = <&sim SIM_CLK_SCGC5_PORTA>, <&sim SIM_CLK_SCGC5_PORTB>;
>
> uart_default: uart_default {
> mux {
> pins = "porta_3", "portb_2";
> function = "uart";
> };
>
> rx {
> bias-pull-pin-default;
> };
> };
> };
>
> And then in the uart node we would have
>
> uart@f00000 {
> compatible = "vendor,uart";
> reg = <0xf00000 0x100>;
> pinctrl-names = "default";
> pinctrl-0 = <&uart_default>;
> };
>
Seems like there's another thing I wanted to avoid. The correctness of
these pin strings will not be checked until the runtime. They need to
properly encode pin bank and pin number within the bank. No chances it can
be validated at .dtb build time. But I guess this is proper way for
generic pinctrl bindings. I mostly (but not completely) based my approach
on rockchip examples (e.g. rk3288) but it looks like they are not entirely
sane.
Thanks,
Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
