RE: [RFC PATCH 10/12] arm/tegra: Add device tree support to pinmuxdriver

[Stephen Warren]

Jamie Iles wrote at Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:49 AM:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:43:23AM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:54:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pinmux.c
...
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > > +static void __init tegra_pinmux_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > +	int pg;
> > > +
> > > +	for (pg = 0; pg < TEGRA_MAX_PINGROUP; pg++) {
> > > +		const char *pg_name = pingroup_name(pg);
> > > +		struct tegra_pingroup_config config;
> > > +		struct device_node *pg_node;
> > > +		int ret;
> > > +		const char *s;
> > > +
> > > +		pg_node = of_find_child_node_by_name(pdev->dev.of_node,
> > > +						     pg_name);
> > > +		if (pg_node == NULL)
> > > +			continue;
> >
> > Rather than iterating over all of the mux names in the pinmux driver and
> > searching for a matching DT node, could you not do it the other way
> > round?  So do an for_each_child_of_node() on the pinmux node then find
> > the matching pingroup keyed by the node name?  This would eliminate
> > of_find_child_node_by_name().  You could also catch invalid
> > configurations for non-existent pins this way.
> 
> I just re-read your introduction email and saw you've already discussed
> this!  Would this require an explicit pin name property though or could
> you just key off of the pg_node->name?

No, I think pg_node->name will work out fine; it's what of_find_child_node_by_name
is using anyway.

-- 
nvpublic

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/