> -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Guo [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:55 AM > To: Stephen Warren > Cc: Dong Aisheng-B29396; Dong Aisheng; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Simon Glass ([email protected]) > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/5] pinctrl: add dt binding support for pinmux > mappings > Importance: High > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:56:52PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > > Dong Aisheng wrote at Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:36 AM: > > > Stephen Warren wrote at Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:18 AM: > > > > Dong Aisheng wrote at Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:21 AM: > > > > > Stephen Warren wrote at Saturday, January 07, 2012 2:03 AM: > > ... > > > > Personally, I think I'd be OK with the sysfs pinctrl map file only > > > > containing the map entries for devices that had used the pinctrl > > > > API, and hence only parsing the pinmux properties in pinmux_get(). > > > > > > Actually I already did it like that in the patch I sent: > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/5/153 > > > > > > Originally I'd like to do like that but I found an inconsistent > > > issue that the sysfs pinctrl map file will behave differently > > > between dt and non-dt Platform. For non-dt, it means showing all > > > exist map entries. For dt, it means Only used pinmux map entries. > > > > > > And in current design when device calls pinmux_get, it will search a > > > predefined pinmux_maps array to find which function and group it is binded > to. > > > If switch to the new way, we only dynamically create pinmux map and > > > dynamically register it when pinmux_get is called, first we need to > > > change the code path in pinmux_get in a totally different way, > > > second for support that we may also better to change pinmux_maps array to > > > a > list. > > > But after changing the pinmux_maps to a list, what about using in non-dt? > > > > > > So without any strong reason i still think it would be better to > > > keep consistency With the non-dt pinctrl subsystem. > > > And the effort would be minimum since besides constructing the map > > > by parsing Device tree, everyting is the same as before in pinmux > > > map and we could re-use the current code. > > > > OK. I think this can work out pretty easily with a bus notifier as I > > mentioned before. > > Sorry I did not catch your idea before. I will try to see if I can find an example.
> > But, one thought on doing this in pinmux_get(). I'd simply implement a > > Function that read a DT node's pinmux property/node, converted it to a > > pinmux mapping table, and registered it with the pinctrl core. Then, > > pinmux_get() could simply call this before doing anything else at all. > > I don't think you'd need to modify how pinmux_get() worked at all. > > > This sounds like a pretty good idea to me. > This does not fix the inconsistency issue. Additionally as I said before, for better support dynamically register pinmux Map, it looks we'd better change the pinmux_maps array to a list. However this is for dt case. But for non-dt case, the static array is just ok. So there's conflict. Not sure if any better idea to fix this. Regards Dong Aisheng _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
