Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: meson: rework pinmux ops

[Jerome Brunet]

On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 13:42 +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > +/* Common pmx functions */
> > +int meson_pmx_get_funcs_count(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev);
> > +const char *meson_pmx_get_func_name(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev,
> > +                                 unsigned selector);
> > +int meson_pmx_get_groups(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev,
> > +                      unsigned selector,
> > +                      const char * const **groups,
> > +                      unsigned * const num_groups);
> 
> Maybe the naming of the common functions should be changed to something
> generic
> like meson_get_functions_name and meson_get_function_groups and leave "pmx" to
> the
> first version pinmux control implementation.
> Same for the ops, meson_pinmux_ops would be better.

I was thinking that the naming convention around this might be confusing. Thx
for the confirmation !

However, I think "pmx" was intially meant to denote a pinmux function, since
pinconf, gpio and pinmux are all mixed in pinctrl-meson.c. I'd prefer to keep
this "pmx" for this reason.

Maybe the SoC specific bits should be named after the first SoC supporting it:
* files: pinctrl-meson-pmx.* => pinctrl-meson8-pmx.*
* functions: meson_pmx_* => meson8_pmx_* 

What do you think ?