lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pinmux bindings proposal V2
* Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> [120129 18:30]:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 07:43:36AM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> ...
> > The cost of the pmx@dta node is about 12 bytes for the header (it
> > depends on the length of the name), and each of the properties above
> > is 16 bytes. So in total this node is 76 bytes. If we have 250 pins
> > being muxed as Tegra3 then this is about 20KB (including a bit of
> > slack for longer names). My point about being able to 'optimise out'
> > some of these remains, though, but probably not for the kernel.
> >
> > Stephen's 'mux' property uses 12 bytes plus 8 bytes per pin/group (I
> > am removing the prefixes):
> >
> > mux =
> > <PG_DTA MUX_SDIO1>
> > <PG_DTD MUX_SDIO1>;
> >
> > so 28 bytes. What I proposed would use (12 + 2 * 16) per pin/group, or
> > 44 bytes (60% bigger):
> >
> It's not only about size but also run-time tree travelling efficiency.
> Your proposal requires every single pin show as a node in device tree.
> Looking at these for_each_node_by_*() APIs in include/linux/of.h, you
> might agree we should avoid bloating device tree with so many nodes.

And that's why I'm suggesting two bindings: A minimal pinctrl-static
binding and more verbose pinctrl-dynamic binding.

AFAIK the number of pinctrl-dynamic bindings needed are just a fraction
of the pinctrl-static bindings. So the extra parsing needed for a few
pinctrl-dynamic bindings should not matter.

Sure it would be nice to have it all in a single binding, but these
bindings have conflicting requirements. So it may not be possible to
do it in a single binding in an efficient way.

Regards,

Tony


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-30 18:51    [W:0.083 / U:2.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site