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    [W:0.020 / U:66.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site