Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: Add pinctrl bindings for mt65xx/mt81xx.

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> > You often talk about ambiguities. Could you give an example what
>> > ambiguities you mean?
>>
>> What happened was this pins = ; arguments were sometimes
>> strings and sometimes integers, that becomes strange to handle
>> in code, ambiguous.
>
> I see. I like naming it 'pinmux' because that's what it is: pins and
> mux settings. A plain 'pinno' suggests that it contains only pin mubers,
> without mux setting. How about 'pin-no-mux'? We also could add an
> explicit "pins-are-numbered" property instead of distinguishing this
> by property names.

I kind of like this "pins-are-numbered" thing.

The other property for the pin, whether pinmux or pin-no-mux or
pin-num-and-mux etc is no such big deal, as long as it's
consistent and documented with the generic bindings.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/