[PATCH 1/2] drivers: create a pinmux subsystem v3

Linus Walleij linus.walleij at linaro.org
Fri Aug 19 08:34:04 EDT 2011


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at 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



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list