Re: ååï[PATCH 2/4] pinctrl: sunxi: add support for the Allwinner A100 pin controller

[Frank Lee]

HI Chen-Yu,  Linus,

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:13 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 05:44:36PM +0800, ææé wrote:
> > >> + SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(F, 0),
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "mmc0"),  /* D1 */
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "jtag"),  /* MS1 */
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x4, "jtag"),  /* MS_GPU */
> > >
> > >We should use another name here, since the code will just pick the first one and
> > >ignore the second. What about jtag-gpu?
> >
> > The underscores are used in front, so changing it to jtag_gpu may be more consistent.
>
> Yep, that makes sense
>
> > >> + SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 7),
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "spdif"),  /* DIN */
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "i2s0"),  /* DOUT0 */
> > >> +  SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x4, "i2s0"),  /* DIN1 */
> > >
> > >I guess the second one would be i2s1?
> >
> > No, each i2s may have many inputs and outputs.
> >
> >  SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(H, 19),
> >      SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
> >               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
> >               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x2, "cir0"),          /* IN */
> >               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x3, "i2s3_dout3"),       /* DOUT3 */
> >               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x4, "i2s3_din3"),       /* DIN3 */
> >               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x5, "ledc"),
> >               SUNXI_FUNCTION_IRQ_BANK(0x6, 6, 19)),
> >
> > Considering that the same pin has multiple same functions,
> > so add a suffix, like i2s3_dout3 and i2s3_din3?
> >
> > Or specify muxsel in the device tree may be another solution.
>
> Having muxsel is not really an option. We have two sets of bindings to
> maintain already, adding a third one would make it fairly hard to
> maintain. And the second binding we support is the generic pinctrl
> binding, so I'm not really sure why we would want to move away from
> that.
>
> And I'm not really fond of having a suffix either. It kind of breaks the
> consistency we had so far, and ideally I'd like to keep that.
>
> Chen-Yu, Linus? Any input on that one?

PING......