Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:49:49 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add StarFive JH7110 pinctrl definitions | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 29/11/2022 02:47, Jianlong Huang wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:32:45 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/11/2022 01:48, Jianlong Huang wrote: >> >>>>>> +/* aon_iomux doen */ >>>>>> +#define GPOEN_AON_PTC0_OE_N_4 2 >>>>>> +#define GPOEN_AON_PTC0_OE_N_5 3 >>>>>> +#define GPOEN_AON_PTC0_OE_N_6 4 >>>>>> +#define GPOEN_AON_PTC0_OE_N_7 5 >>>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> It looks like you add register constants to the bindings. Why? The >>>>> bindings are not the place to represent hardware programming model. Not >>>>> mentioning that there is no benefit in this. >>>> >>>> Also: this entire file should be dropped, but if it stays, you have to >>>> name it matching bindings or compatible (vendor,device.h). >>> >>> Thanks your comments. >>> These macros are used to configure pinctrl in dts, so the file should stay, >> >> Why they should stay? What's the reason? If it is not a constant used by >> driver, then register values should not be placed in the bindings, so >> drop it. >> > > Thanks. > > These macros in binding header(example, DOUT, DOEN etc) will be used in DTS, > and driver will parse the DT for pinctrl configuration. > > Example in dts: > uart0_pins: uart0-0 { > tx-pins { > pinmux = <GPIOMUX(5, GPOUT_SYS_UART0_TX, GPOEN_ENABLE, GPI_NONE)>;
This is usage in DTS and is not an argument to store register addresses/offsets as bindings. What is the usage (of define, not value) in the driver?
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |