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

[Yixun Lan]

On 01/17/2018 08:14 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Yixun Lan <yixun.lan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> 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)
> 
> FWIW, I agree with Jerome.
> 
> Rather than this patch adding a(nother) hard-to-understand macro, please
> submit a pinctrl rename/cleanup to s/uart_ao_b_gpioz/uart_ao_b_z/.
> Since there are not any users of the _gpioz name, now is the time to do
> it.
> 
> We're already using the _x _y _z suffixes all over the place, and IMO,
> adding this new macro would make that even more confusing that it
> already is.
> 
> Kevin
> 

HI Linus
  In this case, please drop this series, and I will send another patch
which simply adjust the pin group name.
  Thanks

Yixun