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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans