Re: [PATCH 4/7] pinctrl: zynq: Document DT binding

[SÃren Brinkmann]

On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 04:00PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Soren Brinkmann
> <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Add documentation for the devicetree binding for the Zynq pincontroller.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx>
> (...)
> > +Example:
> > +       pinctrl0: pinctrl@700 {
> > +               compatible = "xlnx,pinctrl-zynq";
> > +               reg = <0x700 0x200>;
> > +               syscon = <&slcr>;
> > +
> > +               pinctrl_uart1_default: pinctrl-uart1-default {
> > +                       common {
> > +                               groups = "uart1_10_grp";
> > +                               function = "uart1";
> > +                               slew-rate = <0>;
> > +                               io-standard = <1>;
> > +                       };
> 
> I don't really like that you mix multiplexing and config in the
> same node. I would prefer if the generic bindings say we have
> muxing nodes and config nodes, and those are disparate.
> 
> Can't you just split this:
> 
> common-mux {
>     groups = "uart1_10_grp";
>     function = "uart1";
> };
> 
> common-config {
>     groups = "uart1_10_grp";
>     slew-rate = <0>;
>     io-standard = <1>;
> };
> 
> That way we can identify nodes as mux nodes (have "function")
> or config nodes (have "groups" or "pins" but not "function") which
> I think makes things easier to read.

I think such separation is not required by the bindings currently and
the parser assumes everything can be present in any node.
Can we add that requirement to the generic bindings without breaking
current users? I think it would make the implementation a little easier.
	
	Thanks,
	SÃren
--
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/