lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pinmux bindings proposal
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:21:30AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Shawn Guo wrote at Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:24 AM:
...
> > Considering the different pinctrl configurations for the same client
> > device usually share the same pinmux and only pinconf varies. It may
> > worth introducing another level phandle reference. Something like
> > the following:
>
> I don't think there's a need for another level of indirection. The 1:n
> model I was talking about already handles this, I believe. See below.
>
Yes, agreed.

...

> > This will be pretty useful for imx6 usdhc case, which will have 3
> > pinctrl configuration for each usdhc device (imx6 has 4 usdhc devices),
> > pinctrl-50mhz, pinctrl-100mhz and pinctrl-200mhz. All these 3 states
> > have the exactly same pinmux settings, and only varies on pinconf.
>
> Yes, I definitely agree there's a need for this.
>
> As an aside, I wonder if the following would be any better:
>
It does look better to me.

Regards,
Shawn

> sdhci@c8000200 {
> ...
> pinctrl = <&pinmux_sdhci> <&pinconf_sdhci_active>
> <&pinmux_sdhci> <&pinconf_sdhci_suspend>;
> /* Number of entries in pinctrl for each in pinctrl-names */
> pinctrl-entries = <2 2>;
> pinctrl-names = "active", "suspend";
> };
>
> That seems more complex though.
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-18 04:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans