Messages in this thread |  | | From | Tomasz Figa <> | Date | Mon, 10 Oct 2016 02:49:01 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] pinctrl: exynos/samsung: Add header with values used for configuration |
| |
2016-10-10 1:39 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 04:04:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> 2016-09-04 20:04 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Changes since v2 >> > ================ >> > 1. Combine separate patchsets into one. Previously I sent separately the fixes >> > and changes for S3C platforms. >> > 2. Fix issues pointed during review. >> > 3. Add review tags. >> > >> > Changes since v1 >> > ================ >> > 1. Follow Arnd's suggestion about moving the macros to common place. >> > 2. Subjects: replace "GPIO" with "pinctrl". >> > 3. There were some major changes here so I did not add Javier's >> > reviewed-by and tested-by tags. >> > >> > Merging >> > ======= >> > Patches #1 and #2 should probably go through pinctrl tree. In that case I would >> > appreciate a stable branch/tag so DTS could base on top of it. >> > >> > Goal >> > ==== >> > Increase readability: >> > uart0_data: uart0-data { >> > samsung,pins = "gpa0-0", "gpa0-1"; >> > - samsung,pin-function = <2>; >> > - samsung,pin-pud = <0>; >> > - samsung,pin-drv = <0>; >> > + samsung,pin-function = <EXYNOS_PIN_FUNC_2>; >> > + samsung,pin-pud = <EXYNOS_PIN_PULL_NONE>; >> > + samsung,pin-drv = <EXYNOS4_PIN_DRV_LV1>; >> >> I like the idea, thanks for cleaning this up. However I'd like to >> bikeshed the prefix a bit. Since the properties are already prefixed >> by "samsung,", I think it would make much more sense to also prefix >> the generic values with "SAMSUNG_". Of course for soc/family-specific >> values, the soc/family name prefix sounds right. > > I am lost. Sorry, I don't get what kind of final prefixes you would like > to have. > > SAMSUNG_EXYNOS4_PIN_DRV_LV1 > SAMSUNG_EXYNOS5260_PIN_DRV_LV1 > ?
For SoC-specific definitions:
EXYNOS4_PIN_DRV_LV1 EXYNOS5260_PIN_DRV_LV1
> >> Similarly for rest of the value names, such as SAMSUNG_PIN_PUD instead >> of SAMSUNG_PIN_PULL, which obviously sounds more like correct English, >> however hurts the consistency and could confuse the people writing new >> dts files. > > SAMSUNG_S3C64XX_PIN_PUD_NONE > SAMSUNG_EXYNOS_PIN_PUD_NONE
For definitions common for the whole Samsung pinctrl driver:
SAMSUNG_PIN_PUD_NONE
...
But actually I think I missed the fact that there is almost no common definitions. Is that correct? Was that the missing part of my understanding?
Best regards, Tomasz
|  |