On 01/04/2013 09:13 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Gabriel Fernandez <[email protected]>
>
> The "ste,config" property will contain the pin config node.
> It will be easier to define a pin configuration and use it by
> reference without duplicating lines tedious.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fernandez <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ste,nomadik.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ste,nomadik.txt
> -- ste,input : <0/1/2/3>
> +- ste,config: Handle of pin configuration node (ste,config = <&in_pu>)
> +
> +- ste,input : <0/1/2>
The changes to ste,input and ste,sleep-output look like some unrelated
change.
I guess the idea of ste,input is quite neat, but ...
> Example board file extract:
>
> + in_pu: input_pull_up {
> + ste,input = <1>;
> + };
... these nodes shouldn't be placed at the top-level of the device tree;
housing them inside the pin controller node itself makes much more sense
since the pin controller binding is able/allowed to define what goes
inside the pin controller node, but shouldn't influence the top-level of
the device tree.
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-nomadik.c
> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-nomadik.c
> + np_config = of_parse_phandle(np, "ste,config", 0);
> + if (np_config) {
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(nmk_cfg_params); i++) {
> + unsigned long cfg = 0;
> + int val;
Is it worth making ste,config optional, so that config properties can be
placed either into the node directly, or into a node referenced by
ste,config? That might make doing one-off unusual configurations easier
- no need to create a separate node that's only used once. Still, if
that's unlikely on your HW, it's probably no big deal.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
