Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephen Warren <> | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:44:26 -0800 | Subject | RE: [PATCH v6] pinctrl: add a pin config interface |
| |
Linus Walleij wrote at Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:06 AM: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Chanho Park <chanho61.park@samsung.com> wrote: > > >> ChangeLog v5->v6: > >> - Change to using a pin name as parameter for the > >> [get|set]_config() functions, as suggested by Stephen Warren. > >> This is more natural as names will be what a developer has > >> access to in written documentation etc. > > > > I don't agree with it. > > Someone doesn't like to assign a pin name individually because a > > pin number is sufficient to represent each pin. ... > What turned me around to see things Stephen's way was the fact > that if someone reads this code and finds: > > pin_config_set(dev, 42, MY_FUNNY_PULLUP_MACRO); > > It is harder to understand than: > > pin_config_set(dev, "I2C0 SCL", MY_FUNNY_PULLUP_MACRO);
You could mitigate the opaqueness of the numbers by having the pinctrl driver export a header of #defines for the pin numbers, so this could be:
pin_config_set(dev, FOO_PMX_PIN_I2C0_SCL, MY_FUNNY_PULLUP_MACRO);
Still, using strings avoids the need to do this.
Equally, I don't see the disadvantage of using strings here. In earlier discussions, I thought we already discussed making pin names mandatory, which seems to avoid most of Chanho's objections?
-- nvpublic
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |