On 10/01, Paul Osmialowski wrote:
> 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.
I don't see how it could be validated with the <&port pin
function config> binding either. Let's hope that people test
their code, including whatever dts files they produce.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/
