[PATCH V3 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add imx7ulp pinctrl binding doc
Shawn Guo
shawnguo at kernel.org
Thu May 25 00:42:59 PDT 2017
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:06:56AM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote:
> > > > +=== Pin Configuration Node ===
> > > > +- pins: One integers array, represents a group of pins mux setting.
> > > > + The format is fsl,pins = <PIN_FUNC_ID>, PIN_FUNC_ID is a pin
> > > > +working
> > > on
> > > > + a specific function.
> > > > +
> > > > + NOTE: i.MX7ULP PIN_FUNC_ID consists of 4 integers as it shares one
> > > mux
> > > > + and config register as follows:
> > > > + <mux_conf_reg input_reg mux_mode input_val>
> > >
> > > As your PIN_FUNC_ID specifies both the pin ids and their mux settings,
> > > shouldn't you use the newly documented 'pinmux' property in place of
> > > 'pins'?
> > >
> > > Please see
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/com
> > > mit/ ?id=8d5e7c5df0a6c442373628be5221321172b1badf
> > >
> > > The current documentation specifies pin ids and mux settings have to
> > > be assembled in one single integer, which is not your case, but that
> > > can be changed to make it accept an array of integers values if needed.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the info.
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Shawn & Linus,
> > Are you okay with this?
> >
> > If yes, I can extend the standard 'pinmux' property to support integer
> > array and renew the patch series to use it.
> >
>
> Would you comment on this question?
>
> Then I can decide whether sent a new series based on it.
I'm fine with it. But what's important is whether Linus is fine with
extending the standard 'pinmux' property to cover IMX case.
Shawn
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list