lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Pinmux bindings proposal V2
    On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:29:50AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
    > Simon Glass wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:42 AM:
    ...
    > > 1. It doesn't seem to make full use of the device tree format. For example,
    > >
    > > <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
    > >
    > > would be better as something like
    > >
    > > drive-strength = <5>;
    > >
    > > if we could arrange it. It also reduces the need for these
    > > TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH defines.
    >
    > Yes I can see the argument this is more readable.
    >
    > However, it:
    >
    > * Requires a lot of string handling when parsing the device tree, since
    > you have to search for lots of individual properties by name.
    >
    > * Bloats the device tree quite a bit due to representing each parameter
    > as a separate property, with a longish name, rather than a single u32
    > cell in the config property I proposed.
    >
    It bloats device tree more due to the proposal needs to represent every
    single muxable entity (pin for imx case) as a node to accommodate the
    properties like 'drive-strength' here.

    --
    Regards,
    Shawn


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-30 03:23    [W:0.021 / U:92.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site