RE: [RFC PATCH v3 2/5] pinctrl: add dt binding support for pinmuxmappings

[Stephen Warren]

Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote at Friday, January 06, 2012 3:51 AM:
> Stephen Warren wrote at Friday, January 06, 2012 7:38 AM:
> > Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote at Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:41 AM:
...
> > > But what about the pin maps without device associated?
> >
> > Indeed; that's why I'd tend towards defining a table of pinmux usage in the
> > pinmux node, and having other devices refer to that table.
>
> Currently we still prefer to use device node relationship to reflect the pinmux
> map if we can since as you said pinmux map is little depending on the pinctrl
> subsystem implementation.
> And I'm trying to do it now.
> 
> > Still, if the pinmux definitions are in the device nodes, we could simply make
> > the pinmux controller have such a definition itself too, for the "system hog"
> > case.
>
> Yes, that way I think is like:
> iomuxc@020e0000 {
>         pinctrl_uart4: uart4 {
>                 grp-pins = <107 108>;
>                 grp-mux = <4 4>;
> 		   hog_on_boot;
>         };
> }

If pinmux usage is defined in each individual device node, and the "hog"
setup is included in the pinmux controller's own device node, then there's
no need for a "hog_on_boot" property; any pinmux setup node that's inside
the pinmux controller node would automatically be a "hog" entry, and
could be activated as soon as the pinmux controller was probed and
registered with the pinctrl subsystem.

(as a minor nit, DT usually uses - not _ in property names, so that would
be "hog-on-boot").

-- 
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/