On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:04:14 +0100
Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:13:06 +0100 Heiko Schocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:24:30 +0100 Heiko Schocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> +struct cpm_pin {
> >>>> + int port, pin, flags;
> >>>> +};
> >>> I wish someone would consolidate all these definitions of cpm_pin.
> >> Hmm... do you mean something like, moving this struct
> >> in cpm1.h and ...
> >
> > Yes or somewhere else appropriate.
> >
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mgsuvd_pins); i++) {
> >>>> + struct cpm_pin *pin = &mgsuvd_pins[i];
> >>>> + cpm1_set_pin(pin->port, pin->pin, pin->flags);
> >>>> + }
> >>> And the code that uses them ...
> >> making in arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm1.c a function
> >> cpm1_setup_pins (struct cpm_pin *pins) ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > This is not necessary for your patch, but would be a nice cleanup
> > later. N.B. this struct is alos used by users of cpm2_set_pin().
>
> OK. Another thought about this. Shouldnt this table go in the dts?
> A device node like
>
> cpm_pin {
> pins = <port pin flags>;
> };
>
> would be nice, or?
>
This has been a disputable question some time ago, and decided (or it looks
like decided) that devtree describes hardware, and not the way it is configured
at the moment. Therefor, best way for pin stuff is considered, as Scott
mentioned, to set up stuff inside the firmware.
-Vitaly
> bye,
> Heiko
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
