Hi Laurent,
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Monday 30 Jan 2017 19:19:18 Chris Brandt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > + /* Port 5 */
> > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 0), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 1), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 2),
> > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 3), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 4), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 5),
> > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 6), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 7), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 8),
> > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 9), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 10),
> >
> > The RZ/A1L (basically a subset of RZ/A1H to reduce cost) uses all 16
> > port pins on "port 5" so I'd like to include them as well.
> >
> > > +static const struct of_device_id rza1_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
> > > + { .compatible = "renesas,rza1-pinctrl", },
> > > + { }
> > > +};
> >
> > Since this PFC driver file is specifically for RZ/A1, I think a better
> > compatible string would be:
> >
> > .compatible = "renesas,r7s72100-renesas-pinctrl",
>
> Do we need to repeat "renesas" in the name ? And given that the datasheet
> names the hardware "ports", how about "renesas,r7s72100-ports" ? The IP
> core handles both pinctrl and GPIO, so "pinctrl" is a bit restrictive.
Personally, I do not like "renesas,r7s72100-renesas-pinctrl". I was simply
trying to follow the naming guidelines for DT.
I like your suggestion of "renesas,r7s72100-ports" better.
Cheers
Chris
