On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote:
> So to summarize there are two related areas of discussion > here: > > 1. Whether a pinmux map shall map one or 1..N functions > 2. How to handle per-driver instance namespacing of functions > > In both cases I'm currently using simple strings and claiming > that by namespacing these strings cleverly we can avoid > complexity. So my answer to these are: > > 1. Use several functions with ovelapping maps, just name > them differently > 2. Use a string convention and namespace by using > platform/machine/package data and string conventions > such as a "::" separator > > While I *think* (and DO correct me!) that you would argue: > > 1. Make it possible to map several functions to a single > device map > 2. Namespace device instances by different map field > members referring to specific instances > > Is this correctly understood, even if we may not agree? I have now after being massaged by Grant changed opinion on (2) and each pin controller (e.g. pinmux) instance has it's struct device * or pinctrl_dev_name field in the mapping table, so I hope you will find that part solved in an acceptable way in the v4 patch set. So we'd solved 50% of our disagreements. (Please verify!) So remains (1). I hope you will ACK the patch set if I fix this also... I'm thinking about good ways to solve it, reading through your old mails, new suggestions based on the new patch set are welcome. Thanks, Linus Walleij _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
