Re: [PATCH 0/2] pinctrl: meson: use one uniform 'function' name

[Yixun Lan]

Hi Jerome:

On 01/10/2018 03:28 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 10:12 +0800, Yixun Lan wrote:
>>
>> On 01/08/18 16:52, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 15:33 +0800, Yixun Lan wrote:
>>>> These two patches are general improvement for meson pinctrl driver.
>>>> It make the two pinctrl trees (ee/ao) to share one uniform 'function' name for
>>>> one hardware block even its pin groups live inside two differet hardware domains,
>>>> which for example EE vs AO domain here.
>>>>
>>>> This idea is motivated by Martin's question at [1]
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAFBinCCuQ-NK747+GHDkhZty_UMMgzCYOYFcNTrRDJgU8OM=Gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yixun Lan (2):
>>>>   pinctrl: meson: introduce a macro to have name/groups seperated
>>>>   pinctrl: meson-axg: correct the pin expansion of UART_AO_B
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson-axg.c | 4 ++--
>>>>  drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson.h     | 8 +++++---
>>>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Hi Yixun,
>>>
>>> Honestly, I don't like the idea. I think it adds an unnecessary complexity.
>>> I don't see the point of FUNCTION_EX(uart_ao_b, _z) when you could simply write 
>>> FUNCTION(uart_ao_b_z) ... especially when there is just a couple of function per
>>> SoC available on different domains.
>>>
>>> A pinctrl driver can already be challenging to understand at first, let's keep
>>> it simple and avoid adding more macros.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jeromeï
>>   In my opinion, the idea of keeping one uniform 'function' in DT (thus
>> introducing another macro) is worth considering. It would make the DT
>> part much clean.
> 
> Ok this is your opinion. I don't share it. Keeping function names tidy is good,
> I don't think we need another macro to do so.
> 
>>   And yes, it's a trade-off here, either we 1) do more in code to make
>> DT clean or 2) do nothing in the code level to make DT live with it.
> 
> I don't see how adding a macro doing just string concatenation is going to make
> anything more clean. It does not prevent one to write FUNCTION_EX(uart_ao_b,
> _gpioz), resulting in uart_ao_b_gpioz, which is what is apparently considered
> 'not clean'
> 
for the benefits of introducing macro 'FUNCTION_EX', it will end with
 .name = "uart_ao_b", -> same for both EE, AO domain, and it will match
the DT part (although still different for '.groups')


> BTW, there no cleanness issue here, the name is just out of the 'usual scheme'
> but there is no problem with. If you want to change this, and
> s/uart_ao_b_gpioz/uart_ao_b_z/, now is the time to change it. 
> 
I'd rather *NOT* to push a pinctrl patch for just changing
'uart_ao_b_gpioz' to 'uart_ao_b_z' (it's a cosmetic change, and still
end with two different name - 'uart_ao_b_gpioz/z' & 'uart_ao_b' in DT)

>>
>> Yixun
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-amlogic mailing list
> linux-amlogic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic
>